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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hill v. Texas Council Risk Management Fund

Moneta Lynn Hill brought suit against her governmental employer’s self-insurance fund, Texas Council Risk Management Fund (the Fund), seeking uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits after sustaining injuries in a work-related motor vehicle accident. Hill argued that UM/UIM coverage should be presumed due to the Fund's failure to reject it in writing, as mandated by the Texas Insurance Code. The Fund countered that the Insurance Code does not apply to self-insurance funds established by governmental units. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Fund, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that Article 715c of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes exempts governmental self-insurers from the Insurance Code's provisions. The court also deemed Hill's claims for subrogation offset and attorney's fees as moot and not ripe, respectively.

Self-insuranceGovernmental unitsUninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM)Texas Insurance CodeSummary Judgment AppealStatutory InterpretationWorkers' CompensationInterlocal Cooperation ActAppellate Court DecisionRisk Management Fund
References
21
Case No. 03-99-00229-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 1999

Lucas Lopez v. Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund

Lucas Lopez, the appellant, initiated a lawsuit against the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund after the Fund withheld benefits despite a Jim Wells County district court judgment in Lopez's favor for an occupational disease. The Fund contended that under Labor Code section 410.205, the appeals panel's decision denying compensation remained binding until a final, non-appealable judgment. Before Lopez could pursue a bad faith claim, the Fund sought a declaratory judgment in Travis County, which affirmed the Fund's interpretation and absolved it of breaching its policy. Lopez appealed, challenging the district court's denial of his motions for abatement and transfer of venue, as well as its interpretation of the Labor Code. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion and upholding the Fund's interpretation, noting its status as a state agency exempt from supersedeas bond requirements.

Declaratory JudgmentStatutory InterpretationLabor CodeInsurance CodeDeceptive Trade Practices ActVenue DisputePlea in AbatementAppellate ProcedureWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSupersedeas Bond
References
25
Case No. 03-01-00631-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2002

Everest National Insurance Company v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Subsequent Injury Fund Leonard W. Riley, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Director of Texas Workers' Compensation Commission And John Casseb, in His Official Capacity as Administrator of Subsequent Injury Fund

Everest National Insurance Company (Everest) sought reimbursement from the Subsequent Injury Fund for overpaid workers' compensation benefits after district court judgments reversed prior agency decisions. The Fund denied a portion of the requested amount, leading Everest to file a declaratory judgment suit in district court. The district court dismissed the suit, citing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to Everest's alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Texas Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that Everest was not required to exhaust administrative remedies because the Fund had previously stated no such remedies existed. The appellate court found Everest was authorized to bring a direct suit for declaratory relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act to enforce the Fund's statutory obligation, remanding the case for a decision on the merits.

Workers' CompensationInsurance ReimbursementSubsequent Injury FundAdministrative Procedure ActDeclaratory JudgmentExhaustion of Administrative RemediesSubject-Matter JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationTexas Court of AppealsJudicial Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lowe

This is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case involving a Trustee's objection to the Debtor's claim of exemption for accrued funds from a General Motors-United Auto Workers profit-sharing plan. The central legal question was whether these funds qualify for exemption under New York's "opt-out" exemption statutes, specifically Debtor and Creditor Law § 282 or CPLR § 5205(c), or as a spendthrift trust under federal bankruptcy law. The Debtor presented six arguments, including claims of express statutory exemption, exclusion from the bankruptcy estate, and a cash exemption, along with arguments based on the de minimis amount and equitable considerations. The Court meticulously analyzed New York's convoluted exemption schema and ultimately rejected each of the Debtor's proposed arguments, emphasizing that exemptions must be statutory and cannot be created by the court. Consequently, the Court sustained the Trustee's objection, ordering the Debtor to turn over the profit-sharing funds to the Trustee.

BankruptcyExemption LawProfit Sharing PlanChapter 7Debtor and Creditor LawSpendthrift TrustERISAStatutory InterpretationTrustee ObjectionNew York Exemption Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Midland Funding LLC v. Singleton

This case addresses the procedural complexities of CPLR 5222-a concerning the exemption of funds in a judgment debtor's bank account. Plaintiff Midland Funding LLC, assignee of FNANB, sought to enforce a default judgment against defendant April Singleton. Following a restraining notice on Sovereign Bank, April claimed her funds were exempt as earned income. Midland contested this claim, citing insufficient documentation from April and other non-exempt deposits. The court ruled that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine the validity and extent of the claimed exemption, emphasizing the judgment creditor's right to question the debtor given the lack of conclusive proof.

Judgment EnforcementExemption ClaimCPLR 5222-aEvidentiary HearingDefault JudgmentRestraining NoticeIncome ExemptionDebt CollectionDue ProcessBanking Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cicatello v. Brewery Workers Pension Fund

This case addresses an action brought by employees and retired employees of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (Teamsters Fund) seeking to enjoin the merger of the Teamsters Fund with the Brewery Workers Pension Fund. Plaintiffs alleged multiple violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), including insufficient employee notification of the proposed merger, potential reduction in benefits, and failure to meet minimum funding standards. Chief Judge Curtin of the federal court determined that ERISA provisions cited by plaintiffs were either inapplicable to multiemployer plans at the time or had established mechanisms to address the concerns. The court also found the claim regarding the merger not being in the best interests of Teamsters Fund participants to be barred by res judicata due to prior state court decisions. Consequently, the court denied the request for preliminary injunctive relief and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Pension FundsFund MergerPreliminary InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentRes JudicataMulti-employer PlansFiduciary DutyMinimum Funding StandardsTax Qualification
References
12
Case No. 10-93-224-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1994

Subsequent Injury Fund of the State of Texas (Formerly the Second Injury Fund) v. Larry Milligan

The Subsequent Injury Fund appeals a judgment awarding Larry Milligan lifetime benefits for injuries sustained at work. Milligan suffered two ankle injuries in 1987 and a third in 1989, leading to the total loss of use of both feet. He sued the Fund for lifetime benefits after settling with the workers' compensation carrier. The jury found permanent, total loss of use of both feet. The Fund challenged its statutory liability for lifetime benefits and the court's refusal to submit a jury question on total and permanent incapacity. The appellate court affirmed, finding the first issue unpreserved and the second resolved by a statutory conclusive presumption of total and permanent incapacity for the loss of both feet.

Workers' Compensation LawSubsequent Injury FundLifetime BenefitsTotal Permanent IncapacityAnkle InjuriesStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewJury InstructionsConclusive PresumptionOccupational Injuries
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 182 v. New York State Teamsters Council Health & Hospital Fund

Plaintiff Teamsters Local Union No. 182 (Local 182) filed an action against the New York State Teamsters Council Health & Hospital Fund and the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (the Funds) under 29 U.S.C. § 185. Local 182 sought a declaration affirming the existence of valid collective bargaining agreements between April 1992 and March 1994, which mandated grievance and arbitration procedures, and an order compelling the Funds to arbitrate layoff-related grievances. The Union contended there was a long-standing oral agreement to adhere to applicable provisions of the National Master Freight Agreement (NMFA). The Funds moved for summary judgment, asserting a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying the existence of any agreement with requisite definiteness. The court denied the summary judgment motion, affirming subject matter jurisdiction and finding that Local 182 presented genuine issues of material fact concerning the existence of a collective bargaining agreement.

Collective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor DisputeUnion RightsGrievance ProcedureArbitrationSeniority RightsLayoffsNational Master Freight AgreementPension Benefits
References
24
Case No. 15-25-00134-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2025

Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund // Southwest Texas Junior College v. Southwest Texas Junior College // Cross-Appellee, Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund

This case involves an intergovernmental contract dispute between the Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund (Appellant) and Southwest Texas Junior College (Appellee). The College is seeking replacement cost value benefits under a self-insurance contract for property damage allegedly sustained during an April 2021 hailstorm. The College claims a waiver of the Fund’s governmental immunity under TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 271.152, asserting equitable theories of waiver and unconscionability, and intentional torts of fraud and bad faith to expand coverage beyond the express terms of the agreement. The Fund argued that its governmental immunity had not been waived for these claims and damages, emphasizing that statutory waivers are to be narrowly construed. The trial court partially granted the Fund's jurisdictional plea, dismissing claims for exemplary, consequential, or treble damages, but denied the plea regarding the College's equitable and intentional tort theories, viewing them as defensive in nature. The Fund appeals this partial denial, arguing that the Act's narrow immunity waiver does not extend to these theories which attempt to create coverage where none explicitly exists in the written contract.

Governmental ImmunityContract DisputeSelf-Insurance PoolRisk ManagementEquitable DoctrinesIntentional TortsWaiverUnconscionabilityTexas LawAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. No. 77 Civ. 4712 (MP)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1978

National Ben. Fund, Etc. v. Presby. H., Etc.

The National Benefit Fund for Hospital and Health Care Workers and the National Pension Fund for Hospital and Health Care Workers (the Funds) sued Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York, Inc. (Hospital) to recover allegedly owed contributions based on collective bargaining agreements. The Hospital moved to dismiss, asserting the action was barred by a prior arbitration award between the Union (District 1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees) and the Hospital, which concerned the same contributions and was dismissed due to the Union's unreasonable delay. The District Court, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, held that the arbitration award had res judicata effect. The court determined that the Funds were either in privity with the Union or acted as third-party beneficiaries subject to the same defenses as the promisee Union. Consequently, the court granted the Hospital's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Arbitration AwardRes Judicata DoctrineEmployee Benefit FundsCollective Bargaining DisputesSummary Judgment MotionHospital Labor RelationsUnion RepresentationERISA ClaimsPreclusionFederal District Court
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 5,809 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