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. 01–04–01277–CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2006

Zapata County and Zapata Independent School District v. Conocophillips Company on Its Own Behalf and as Successor–by–merger to Conoco Inc. (f/K/A Continental Oil Company, Inc.) Brandywine Industrial Gas, Inc. Phillips Petroleum Company El Paso Production Oil and Gas Company

This opinion consolidates 19 separate suits filed by various Texas counties and school districts (Taxing Units) against numerous oil and gas companies (Oil Companies). The Taxing Units alleged fraud and conspiracy to defraud through schemes to undervalue oil and gas reserves for ad valorem tax purposes, leading to underpayment of taxes. The trial courts granted the Oil Companies' pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing the cases because the Taxing Units failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Texas Tax Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the Tax Code provides the exclusive means for addressing such claims, establishing a pervasive regulatory scheme through the Appraisal Review Board, and offering remedies like challenging valuations or back-appraising omitted property. The court held that the Taxing Units cannot bypass the comprehensive statutory scheme by recharacterizing tax disputes as common-law fraud cases.

Ad Valorem TaxProperty ValuationTax FraudAdministrative RemediesExclusive JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeAppraisal Review BoardOil and Gas TaxationMineral InterestsExhaustion of Remedies
References
14
Case No. 3-15-00262-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2015

Texas Association of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine v. Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners And Patricia Gilbert, Executive Director in Her Official Capacity

This is an Administrative Procedures Act challenge to the validity of Chiropractic Board rules that authorize chiropractors to engage in the unlicensed practice of acupuncture. The Association sought to invalidate these rules and alternatively sought a declaration that the statutory scheme allowing chiropractors to practice acupuncture is unconstitutional. The trial court granted the Chiropractic Board’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Association’s competing motion. The Association argues that the Chiropractic Board exceeded its statutory authority, and its interpretation of the Acupuncture Chapter is unreasonable and creates public health risks due to inadequate training. Alternatively, the statutory scheme violates the Texas Constitution by favoring one school of medicine and containing more than one subject. The Association also argues that the statute of limitations defense fails.

Administrative LawScope of PracticeChiropractic RegulationAcupuncture RegulationStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersDelegation of AuthorityPublic Health and SafetyProfessional Licensing
References
97
Case No. E2000-02748-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2002

Ricky McElhaney v. Howard Barnwell

Plaintiff Ricky W. McElhaney filed a petition in 1998 to disbar his former attorney, Howard B. Barnwell, under a Tennessee statutory scheme. The statutory scheme was repealed in March 2000, and the Trial Court dismissed the petition, holding it lacked jurisdiction. Plaintiff appealed, arguing the repeal should not be applied retrospectively, citing the Tennessee Constitution. The Court of Appeals held that the public act repealing the statute was not solely remedial or procedural and thus must operate prospectively, aligning with Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-101 which protects pending proceedings. Therefore, the Trial Court erred in dismissing the petition, and the case is vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the pre-repeal procedure.

DisbarmentAttorney MisconductStatutory RepealRetrospective LawJurisdictionAppellate ProcedureTennessee ConstitutionLegal EthicsProcedural LawRemedial Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'DELL v. Wright

Rebecca Wright sued Christopher O’Dell and Arlington Steakhouse, Inc. for sexual harassment, assault and battery, and constructive discharge, winning $425,000 in mental anguish damages at trial. O’Dell appealed, raising four issues: the exclusion of a defense witness, the allowance of Wright's testimony about a childhood sexual assault, the trial court's failure to apply a statutory cap to damages, and the sufficiency of evidence for the mental anguish award. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the witness exclusion or the admission of Wright's testimony. It also determined that O'Dell waived the statutory cap defense by not pleading it and found sufficient evidence to support the jury's mental anguish awards.

Sexual HarassmentAssault and BatteryConstructive DischargeMental Anguish DamagesAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulingStatutory Damages CapAffirmative DefenseDiscovery AbuseJury Verdict
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yates v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corp.

Michelle Yates commenced an action against New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, seeking damages for unpaid accrued annual leave and penalties for alleged COBRA notification failures. Her claim for accrued leave was dismissed as moot after she accepted a settlement check. The defendant moved to dismiss the COBRA claim, contending that federal courts held exclusive jurisdiction over such matters concerning statutory penalties. The court affirmed that, according to 29 USC § 1132 (e), claims seeking statutory penalties under COBRA are exclusively within federal court jurisdiction. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the COBRA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, advising the plaintiff to pursue her remaining claims in a federal venue.

CPLR 3211Motion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionCOBRAERISAStatutory PenaltiesExclusive Federal JurisdictionConcurrent JurisdictionAccrued LeaveEmployment Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Westchester Fire Insurance Co. v. American General Fire & Casualty Co.

American General Fire and Casualty Insurance (American General) secured a summary judgment, asserting no obligation to defend or pay a claim against Masonry Products, Inc. (Masonry) following the electrocution death of its employee, Joseph A. Mireles. The employee's family sued the City of Austin, which subsequently joined Masonry, seeking indemnity under a statutory cause of action related to operations near high voltage lines. American General refused Masonry's request for defense, citing a policy exclusion for employee bodily injuries or obligations to indemnify others due to such injuries. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the policy exclusion was unambiguous and clearly applied to the City's indemnity claim, as it originated from Mireles's bodily injuries, rather than solely from Masonry's statutory violation.

Insurance LawPolicy ExclusionIndemnity ClaimEmployee InjuryWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentStatutory LiabilityHigh Voltage LinesAppellate ReviewBodily Injury
References
3
Case No. 14-20-00177-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2022

Juan Reyes v. the Lubrizol Corporation

Juan Reyes, an employee of S&B Engineers and Constructors, LTD (S&B), was injured while working at a facility owned and operated by The Lubrizol Corporation. Reyes filed a lawsuit against Lubrizol, alleging negligence by Lubrizol's employees. Lubrizol sought summary judgment based on the exclusive-remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, arguing it qualified as a 'general contractor' under a written agreement with S&B, which involved providing workers’ compensation insurance. The trial court granted Lubrizol's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Reyes contended that Lubrizol did not meet the statutory definition of a 'general contractor' or that the agreement was ambiguous. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Lubrizol had conclusively established its entitlement to the exclusive-remedy defense as a statutory 'general contractor'.

Workers' Compensation ActExclusive Remedy DefenseGeneral Contractor StatusSubcontractor AgreementSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor CodeContract InterpretationEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityPremises Owner
References
15
Case No. 14-12-01048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2013

Raymond L. Brooks v. the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Raymond L. Brooks appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Goodyear), which was based on Goodyear's exclusive-remedy affirmative defense under the Texas Labor Code. Brooks, an employee of Qualitech Maintenance, Inc. working at a Goodyear facility, sustained work-related injuries and received workers' compensation benefits from Qualitech's policy. He subsequently sued Goodyear for negligence, prompting Goodyear to argue it was his "statutory employer." Goodyear provided evidence that it had a written agreement to reimburse Qualitech for workers' compensation insurance premiums for Qualitech employees at Goodyear facilities, and it fulfilled this obligation. Citing HCBeck, Ltd., v. Rice, the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Goodyear conclusively established its "statutory employer" status and entitlement to the exclusive-remedy defense.

Workers' CompensationExclusive Remedy DefenseStatutory EmployerSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeContractual ReimbursementNegligence ClaimAppellate ReviewEmployer ImmunityQualitech Maintenance
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. Duenez

The Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS) filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of its motion to dismiss a lawsuit. This underlying suit was initiated by Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS), acting as an agent for ERS, against Xavier and Irene Duenez to recover a portion of a settlement the Duenezes received from a separate personal injury lawsuit. ERS contended that it possessed exclusive jurisdiction over subrogation disputes, arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because administrative remedies were not exhausted. However, the court found no explicit statutory provision within the ERS Act granting ERS exclusive authority over subrogation disputes, noting that any such rights are contractual rather than statutory. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny ERS's motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed in the district court.

Interlocutory AppealMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionExclusive JurisdictionSubrogation DisputeTexas Employees Group Benefits ActAdministrative RemediesDeclaratory JudgmentContractual RightsStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Case No. 03-04-00367-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2004

Bexar Metropolitan Water District v. City of Bulverde, Texas Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority City of Boerne And City of Fair Oaks Ranch

Bexar Metropolitan Water District (BexarMet) appealed the district court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction. The underlying action involved the City of Bulverde and the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (GBRA) seeking declaratory judgments against BexarMet in Comal County District Court. These judgments concerned BexarMet's statutory boundaries and its authority to provide water utility services or expand its territory following a 2003 amendment to its enabling act. BexarMet contended that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that boundary contests could only be brought by the attorney general, that Bulverde and GBRA lacked standing, and that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality held exclusive or primary jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Bulverde and GBRA had standing under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act and that statutory interpretation, which was central to the case, was within the courts' jurisdiction, not exclusively or primarily with the Commission.

Water RightsWater District BoundariesDeclaratory JudgmentStandingSubject Matter JurisdictionStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of AppealsGovernmental ImmunityInterlocutory AppealPlea to the Jurisdiction
References
54
Showing 1-10 of 5,554 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