CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 3-93-672-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1994

Employers Casualty Company Focus Healthcare Management, Inc. Genesys Cost Management Systems, Inc. Corporate Systems, Ltd. Employers National Risk Management Services, Inc. And Havis Wayne Dortch v. Texas Association of School Boards Workers' Compensation Self Insurance Fund El Paso I.S.D. Irving I.S.D. Hico I.S.D. And Aransas Pass I.S.D.

This is an interlocutory appeal from a district court order granting class certification. The Texas Association of School Boards Workers' Compensation Self-Insurance Fund and several independent school districts (appellees) sued Employers Casualty Company and other entities (appellants) alleging misrepresentation and breach-of-contract related to workers' compensation benefits and medical cost containment services. Appellants raised seven points of error regarding standing, the certification hearing, and the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding that the Fund had standing, the class certification hearing was proper, and the class satisfied the prerequisites and maintenance criteria of Rule 42, particularly under Rule 42(b)(4) for predominance and superiority of common issues.

Class ActionClass CertificationInterlocutory AppealStandingNumerosityCommonalityTypicalityRepresentativenessRule 42Predominance
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Delphi Energy & Engine Management Systems, Inc.

Plaintiff Mortess Johnson, an African-American woman, sued her employer, DELPHI ENERGY and ENGINE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., for racial discrimination. She alleged lower wages, lack of promotion, lower classifications, inadequate equipment and training, and being approached about retirement, unlike non-African-American employees, over her thirty-year tenure ending in 1997. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing her claims were time-barred and that she failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as her statistical evidence alone was insufficient and she did not apply for promotions. The court granted the defendant's motion, finding plaintiff's claims regarding a continuing violation were conclusory and her reliance on statistics alone, without proof of applying for promotions, failed to overcome the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for her lack of advancement.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIContinuing Violation DoctrineStatute of LimitationsPrima Facie CaseDisparate TreatmentStatistical EvidenceFailure to Promote
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sperry Systems Management Division v. Engineers Union, International Union of Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers

This case concerns a labor dispute between Sperry Systems Management Division and the Engineers Union regarding subcontracting. Sperry sought to enjoin arbitration, while the Union counterclaimed to compel it, both filing motions for summary judgment. The central issue was whether a grievance, challenging the presence of subcontractor employees in Sperry's plant, was arbitrable under a collective bargaining agreement's clause explicitly excluding subcontracting decisions. The court, led by Judge Bauman, determined that the issue of arbitrability was for judicial determination, not the arbitrator. Finding the exclusionary clause clear and unambiguous, the court granted Sperry's motion, thereby enjoining the arbitration and denying the Union's counterclaim.

Labor DisputeArbitration EnjoinedCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontracting ClauseSummary JudgmentArbitrabilityContract InterpretationGrievance ProcedureLabor Management Relations ActExclusionary Clause
References
20
Case No. 15-25-00092-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2025

Bright Health Management, Inc. v. Texas Department of Insurance and Cantilo & Bennett, L.L.P., Special Deputy Receiver of Bright Healthcare Insurance Company of Texas

This case involves an appeal by Bright Health Management, Inc. (BHM) against Bright Health Insurance Company of Texas (BHICOT), which is currently in receivership. The appeal challenges an order from the 455th Judicial District Court in Travis County, Texas. The Special Deputy Receiver (SDR) for BHICOT moved to compel BHM, a non-party to the liquidation, to produce all BHICOT-related records, specifically electronically stored information (ESI) from BHM's integrated email system. BHM requested the implementation of ESI protocols to protect its privacy, privileged, and confidential information related to its other clients, and sought reimbursement for the costs of production, citing its Management Services Agreement (MSA) with BHICOT and Texas law governing non-party discovery. The District Court, adopting the Special Master's recommendation, denied BHM's request for ESI protocols and ordered BHM to bear all production costs, asserting that BHM created the commingled system for its own economic benefit. BHM argues that this ruling disregards established Texas ESI jurisprudence and its contractual and statutory rights to cost reimbursement, and seeks reversal of the District Court's order.

Insurance ReceivershipElectronic DiscoveryESI ProtocolsNon-Party DiscoveryCost ReimbursementAffiliate TransactionsManagement Services AgreementTexas Insurance LawConfidentialityPrivilege Protection
References
20
Case No. 03-02-00803-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2003

All Saints Health System All Saints Episcopal Hospital/Fort Worth All Saints Episcopal Hospital/Cityview Baptist Health System Baptist Medical Center North Central Baptist Hospital Northeast Baptist St. Luke's Baptist v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission State Office of Risk Management Continental Casualty Company Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund Mid-Century Insurance Company Truck Insurance Exchange Farmers Insurance Exchange

This case addresses a dispute between hospitals and the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and various insurers regarding reimbursement for medical services provided under a 1992 hospital fee guideline that was later invalidated. The hospitals sought reevaluation of claims under an expired 1991 emergency guideline or direct application of statutory standards. The insurers, conversely, argued that managed care contracts should cap the reimbursement amounts. The court affirmed the trial court's declaratory judgment, ruling that reimbursements must be determined on a fee-for-service basis, guided by the 'fair and reasonable' statutory requirements of Texas Labor Code section 413.011(d) and Rule 134.1. While managed care contracts are considered relevant evidence, they do not serve as a definitive cap on reimbursement.

Workers' Compensation LawHospital ReimbursementFee GuidelinesAdministrative LawDeclaratory JudgmentTexas Labor CodeMedical Cost ControlManaged Care ContractsRule InvalidationFee-for-Service Model
References
20
Case No. ADJ4522362 (VNO 0399188) ADJ537923 (VNO 0548972)
Regular
Sep 21, 2009

CELESTE LILJEBLAND-THOMAS vs. BARONE'S RESTAURANT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's untimely vocational rehabilitation appeal. The WCJ had dismissed the appeal, finding it was filed late on May 4, 2009, rather than by the January 19, 2009 deadline. Conflicting evidence exists regarding the appeal's mailing date and subsequent processing by the Rehabilitation Unit, complicated by issues with the new Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision to clarify the circumstances of the appeal's filing and entry into EAMS.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRehabilitation UnitVocational Rehabilitation AppealTimelinessFindings and OrderReconsiderationState Compensation Insurance FundElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Foster v. Teacher Retirement System

Diana Foster, a retired teacher, appealed the dismissal of her lawsuit against the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) and its insurance administrators, Aetna Life Insurance Company and Aetna Health Management, LLC. Foster initially sued after Aetna denied coverage for her prescribed intravenous immune globulin infusion therapy (IVIG). Her claims included breach of contract, bad faith, insurance code violations, deceptive trade practices, and a request for declaratory judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that TRS and Aetna were protected by sovereign immunity, which had not been waived by legislation or provided for judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act. Consequently, the court found no error in dismissing Foster's suit rather than abating it.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernment Agency ImmunityInsurance DenialsHealth Benefit PlansDeclaratory Judgment ActionsAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewAgent LiabilityContractual DisputesAppellate Procedure
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. TYCO ELECTRONICS POWER SYSTEMS, INC.

Plaintiff Michael Stephen Lee sued his former employer, Tyco Electronics Power Systems, Inc., for breach of contract after his retirement benefits were reduced. Lee claimed he formed an individual contract with Power Systems to enroll in the Extended Compensation Option (ECO) program, a benefit under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), to ensure he met the years of service required for full retirement before his plant closed. Power Systems moved to dismiss the claim, arguing it was preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA, asserting that the claim required interpretation of the CBA. The court denied Power Systems' motion to dismiss, finding that Lee's claim was based on a separate individual agreement and not directly on the CBA. The court also granted Lee's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

Breach of ContractLMRA PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementIndividual ContractMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Employment BenefitsRetirement BenefitsExtended Compensation OptionFederal Preemption
References
17
Case No. 03-05-00837-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2008

Diana Foster v. Texas Retirement System, Trustee for Texas Public Retired School Employees Group Insurance Program Aetna Life Insurance Company And Aetna Health Management, LLC

Diana Foster, a retired teacher, sued the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) and its insurance administrators, Aetna, after her claim for intravenous immune globulin infusion therapy (IVIG) was denied. She asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the insurance code, and deceptive trade practices, along with a request for declaratory judgment. The trial court granted appellees' pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice, citing sovereign immunity. Foster appealed, arguing her declaratory judgment claim was not barred, legislative immunity was waived, the administrative procedures act provided for judicial review, and Aetna was not protected by sovereign immunity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding that sovereign immunity applied to TRS and, by extension, to Aetna as its agent, and that Foster's claims did not fall under any exceptions for judicial review or waiver of immunity.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernment AgencyInsurance DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative Procedures ActAgency AdjudicationJudicial ReviewBreach of ContractDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingDeceptive Trade Practices Act
References
26
Case No. 03-02-00502-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2003

Robert S. Howell, D.C. and First Rio Valley Medical, P.A. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. Texas Mutual Insurance Company Continental Casualty Company Brownsville I.S.D. Edwards Risk Management D/B/A Edwards Claims Administration State Office of Risk Management

This is an interlocutory appeal of a temporary injunction, where a final judgment has already been rendered in the underlying cause. The appellees requested dismissal of this appeal as moot. Additionally, appellees moved for damages and sanctions due to the appellants' allegedly frivolous petition for emergency writ of prohibition, which the court overruled. The appeal was ultimately dismissed as moot.

Interlocutory AppealTemporary InjunctionMootnessFrivolous PetitionEmergency Writ of ProhibitionSanctionsAppellate ProcedureTexas Court of AppealsWorkers’ Compensation
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 5,493 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational