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

Midland Central Appraisal District v. Plains Marketing, L.P.

This ad valorem tax suit involves Plains Marketing's appeal of tax assessments on crude oil inventory in Midland County. The Midland Central Appraisal District and Appraisal Review Board challenged the trial court's jurisdiction, arguing Plains failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The core legal question revolves around whether failure to exhaust administrative remedies constitutes a jurisdictional bar to a taxpayer's appeal, especially in light of the Texas Supreme Court's Kazi decision. The court clarified that when an administrative body, like the appraisal review board, is vested with initial fact-finding responsibility for issues such as property exemptions or appraisals, the exhaustion of administrative remedies is indeed a jurisdictional requirement. However, the court found that Plains did exhaust its administrative remedies because, despite inadequate protest notices, the Interstate Commerce Clause exemption issue was thoroughly discussed, debated, and determined by the Appraisal Review Board during the administrative hearing. Consequently, the trial court was deemed to have subject-matter jurisdiction, and its judgment was affirmed.

Ad Valorem TaxTax AppealAdministrative RemediesJurisdictionExhaustion DoctrineInterstate Commerce ClauseTexas Property Tax CodeAppraisal Review BoardSubject-Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory Appeal
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Dallas County Schools

Appellant Sheila Davis sued Dallas County Schools (DCS) for retaliatory discharge after her employment was terminated following a workers' compensation claim. DCS filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting Davis failed to exhaust administrative remedies, which the trial court granted. On appeal, Davis contested the necessity and adequacy of administrative remedies, arguments for tolling the grievance period, and a violation of her constitutional right to open courts. The appellate court determined that DCS's grievance process indeed covered retaliatory discharge claims, necessitating exhaustion of remedies. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Davis had not exhausted her administrative remedies and had waived her constitutional argument on appeal.

Retaliatory DischargeAdministrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrinePlea to JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionGrievance ProceduresTermination of EmploymentTexas Labor CodePublic EmployeesOpen Courts Provision
References
11
Case No. 10-07-00252-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2007

in Re American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania

American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania sought a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Gene Knize of the 40th District Court of Ellis County to vacate an order lifting an abatement and permitting discovery. The underlying suit was filed by Belinda Parker-Jett and Tim against American Casualty, alleging improper delay or denial of workers' compensation benefits. The suit was abated pending the exhaustion of administrative remedies with the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (now the Division). Despite administrative remedies not being fully exhausted, Judge Knize lifted the abatement solely for discovery purposes. The appellate court found that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction without the exhaustion of administrative remedies and thus abused its discretion. The court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, concluding that American Casualty lacked an adequate remedy by appeal.

MandamusAbatement OrderDiscoveryExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesWorkers' Compensation InsuranceAbuse of DiscretionSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cameron Appraisal District v. Rourk

The Cameron Appraisal District assessed ad valorem taxes against the owners of 34 travel trailers. Some owners did not exhaust administrative remedies, while others did. The district court dismissed claims for those who failed to exhaust remedies, granted summary judgment against the others, and refused class certification. The court of appeals reversed these rulings. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision, holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory and courts lack jurisdiction without it. The court also stated that a class action cannot bypass these statutory prerequisites for taxpayer recovery. However, the court agreed that fact issues prevent determining whether the remaining trailers are taxable as a matter of law, remanding that issue for further proceedings.

Ad Valorem TaxesProperty TaxAdministrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrineJurisdictionClass ActionTax CodeTravel TrailersManufactured HomesRecreational Vehicles
References
8
Case No. 03-04-00374-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2007

Mark Pickett and Barbara Pickett v. Texas Mutual Insurance Co., F/K/A Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund

This appeal addresses the necessity of exhausting administrative remedies at the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission before filing a lawsuit for bad faith denial or delay of medical benefits. Appellants Mark and Barbara Pickett sued Texas Mutual Insurance Company, alleging bad faith in delaying or denying benefits to Barbara Pickett following a work-related injury. The trial court dismissed most of their claims for lack of jurisdiction due to unexhausted administrative remedies and granted a take-nothing summary judgment on claims arising from three medical disputes for which remedies had been exhausted. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the exhaustion requirement is constitutional and applies broadly, and that Texas Mutual was not liable for collection notices received by the Picketts for benefits ultimately ordered to be paid to Dr. Kiser.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrineBad Faith InsuranceMedical BenefitsSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate ProcedureConstitutional LawDue ProcessRetroactivity
References
44
Case No. 01-07-00193-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2008

Rosa Schwartz v. the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., and Belinda Ybarra

Rosa Schwartz sued The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, Gallagher Basset Services, Inc., and Belinda Ybarra (collectively, “Gallagher”) for damages stemming from alleged unreasonable delay and denial in authorizing her requested foot surgery. The trial court granted Gallagher's plea to the jurisdiction, ruling Schwartz failed to exhaust administrative remedies and dismissing her claims. Schwartz appealed, contending the trial court erred in its exhaustion of remedies ruling and in granting the plea regarding claims for a neuroma deformity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Schwartz failed to exhaust administrative remedies regarding the foot surgery preauthorization dispute and that her petition did not adequately allege claims related to the neuroma deformity denial. The court concluded that the impediment to jurisdiction regarding the foot surgery could not be cured due to untimely requests for reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionAdministrative RemediesMedical NecessityFoot SurgeryNeuroma DeformityInsurance DenialPlea to the JurisdictionAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2000

Cash America International Inc. v. Bennett

Justice Owen, joined by Justice Hecht, dissents from the Court's holding that Bennett is not required to exhaust administrative remedies under the Texas Pawnshop Act before filing suit. Owen argues that the Act, prior to its September 1999 amendment, clearly mandated exhaustion and that the legislative intent of a later amendment should not infer the intent of an earlier one. The dissent also addresses Bennett's constitutional challenges, finding that limiting recovery to like-kind replacement does not violate the open courts provision given the nature of pawnshop transactions and the reasonable substitution of remedies. However, Justice Owen agrees that the Act, as interpreted by the Texas Administrative Procedure Act (imposing substantial evidence review), would violate the right to a jury trial under the Texas Constitution. Owen proposes severing the unconstitutional aspect of substantial evidence review, allowing for de novo review with a jury determination of factual issues. The dissent concludes that Bennett failed to exhaust administrative remedies and therefore her claim should be dismissed or abated.

Exhaustion of Administrative RemediesTexas Pawnshop ActStatutory InterpretationRight to Jury TrialOpen Courts ProvisionConstitutional LawSubstantial Evidence ReviewDe Novo ReviewSeverabilityAdministrative Procedure Act
References
17
Case No. 09-08-00367-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2009

Philip J. Pohl v. Polunsky Unit

Philip J. Pohl appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit under Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Court addressed his contentions regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies, similarity of claims to previous lawsuits, the trial court's failure to grant leave to file, and the frivolity and legal basis of his claims. The court found that Pohl failed to comply with Section 14.005 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code regarding exhaustion of remedies and that his motion to waive court costs under Section 14.011 was not sufficiently supported by an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Court also found that Pohl did not provide adequate legal authority or analysis to support his claims, thus overruling his issues regarding frivolity and arguable basis in law. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Inmate litigationExhaustion of administrative remediesFrivolous claimsInjunctive reliefPrison Litigation Reform ActPLRATexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeChapter 14Chapter 41Res judicata
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pennsylvania

American Casualty Company sought a writ of mandamus against Judge Gene Knize to set aside an order lifting an abatement and permitting discovery in an underlying suit. Belinda Parker-Jett and her husband Tim had previously sued American Casualty in 2003 for improper delay/denial of workers' compensation benefits, and that suit was abated in 2004 pending administrative remedies. In 2007, Judge Knize lifted the abatement specifically for discovery purposes, despite the administrative remedies not being fully exhausted. The appellate court determined that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction until administrative remedies were exhausted, concluding that Judge Knize abused his discretion by lifting the abatement. The Court conditionally granted the mandamus, noting that American Casualty had no adequate remedy by appeal and would be deprived of the benefits of the workers' compensation system.

MandamusAbatementSubject Matter JurisdictionWorkers' CompensationAdministrative RemediesDiscoveryAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Litigation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Janik v. Lamar Consolidated Independent School District

Gertrude Janik, a former school district clerk, sued the Lamar Independent Consolidated School District (LISD) and her supervisor, Kathy Graeber-Raley, for wrongful discharge after 12 years of employment. Janik, an at-will employee, alleged she was terminated without cause and that her employers intended to replace her with a younger Hispanic woman, citing pretextual reasons for her dismissal. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. Janik appealed, arguing that exhaustion of administrative remedies was unnecessary due to her constitutional claims, other exceptions to the exhaustion rule, and that the appellees did not overcome a standard of review favoring her. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that state constitutional claims require exhaustion of administrative remedies unless federal preemption applies, and that Janik failed to plead any exceptions to the exhaustion requirement in the trial court.

Wrongful dischargeExhaustion of administrative remediesPlea to the jurisdictionAt-will employmentConstitutional claimsFederal preemptionSchool district clerkEmployment terminationTexas lawAppellate review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 3,051 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