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

Figueroa v. Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden

Carlos Figueroa, an Office Clerk/Chauffeur for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden and the Permanent Mission of Sweden to the United Nations, filed claims for personal injury, retaliation, and discrimination. The defendants sought dismissal based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Court found the plaintiff's employment, primarily as a chauffeur for diplomats, to be a governmental function, thus granting sovereign immunity for the discrimination and retaliation claims. However, the Court denied dismissal for a breach of a separate tolling agreement, deeming it a commercial activity not subject to immunity. The motion for partial dismissal was therefore granted in part and denied in part.

Foreign Sovereign Immunities ActCommercial Activity ExceptionEmployment DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimsBreach of ContractDiplomatic ImmunitySovereign ImmunityChauffeur EmploymentGovernmental FunctionSwedish Mission
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workforce Commission v. Olivas

Ms. Maria Elena Olivas, a former employee of the Texas Workforce Commission, filed a workers' compensation claim after developing injuries in March 2008. She was subsequently dismissed from employment in May 2009, leading her to file a suit against the Commission for retaliatory discharge. The Commission filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity and arguing that Section 311.034 of the Texas Government Code mandated an unequivocal waiver of immunity, which it claimed was absent in the anti-retaliation provisions of Chapter 451. The trial court denied the Commission's plea. On appeal, the Commission contended that Section 311.034 abrogated existing Texas Supreme Court precedent (*Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez*) that recognized a waiver of sovereign immunity for such claims against state agencies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that the State Applications Act (SAA) still provides a clear and unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity for retaliation claims against state agencies, and that neither Section 311.034 nor the *Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman* decision altered this established legal analysis.

Sovereign ImmunityRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewGovernment CodeLabor CodeLegislative WaiverState AgenciesStatutory Construction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rios v. Marshall

This action was commenced by thirty-eight migrant farmworkers, individually and on behalf of a class, alleging a conspiracy among New York apple growers, Florida sugar cane growers' associations, and various government officials. Plaintiffs claim violations of antitrust and civil rights laws due to the alleged replacement of domestic workers with temporary foreign workers from Jamaica. The defendants moved to dismiss claims on grounds including antitrust immunity, lack of state action, absence of racial animus, statute of limitations, res judicata, lack of personal jurisdiction, and foreign sovereign immunity. The court granted some dismissal motions, particularly those concerning wage-based antitrust claims, civil rights claims under §§ 1981 and 1983, and claims against sovereign entities or for lack of jurisdiction. However, the court denied motions to dismiss certain antitrust claims regarding working conditions and civil rights claims under § 1985. The case will proceed on the surviving claims, with plaintiffs instructed to file an amended complaint.

Migrant WorkersFarmworkersAntitrust LawCivil RightsSherman ActClayton ActConspiracyTemporary Foreign WorkersImmigration LawWagner-Peyser Act
References
73
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Friedar v. Government of Israel

Samuel Friedar, a New York citizen, sued the Government of Israel and its branches for failing to compensate him for medical costs and expenses incurred after being injured while serving in the Israeli Army in 1948. Friedar alleged breach of contract, intentional withholding of information, negligent loss of files, and wrongful conversion of funds. The Government moved to dismiss, claiming sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1604 and that the action was barred by the Act of State doctrine. The Court found that the Government was entitled to sovereign immunity, rejecting Friedar's arguments for exceptions based on waiver or commercial activity. Furthermore, even if jurisdiction existed, the Court would dismiss the case under the Act of State doctrine, citing the impropriety of reviewing a foreign state's internal administrative activity, especially regarding military and veterans' benefits. The Government’s motion to dismiss was granted.

Sovereign ImmunityAct of State DoctrineMotion to DismissForeign Sovereign Immunities ActFSIAGovernmental ImmunityCommercial Activity ExceptionVeterans' BenefitsJurisdictionInternational Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 1984

Lynch v. Port of Houston Authority

This case is an appeal from a summary judgment involving the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The appellants, Donna Jean Lynch and Annette Bogany, sued the Port of Houston Authority and its employees for the wrongful deaths of William Presley Lynch and Dean C. Bogany, Jr., who died from chemical fumes while working in a grain bin. The trial court granted summary judgment, asserting sovereign immunity. The appellants argued that sovereign immunity should be abolished, violates both the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, and that the Texas Tort Claims Act's limitations on exemplary damages were inapplicable or unconstitutional. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, upholding the doctrine of sovereign immunity and rejecting all of the appellants' constitutional challenges and statutory interpretations.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunitySummary JudgmentTexas Tort Claims ActExemplary DamagesWrongful DeathConstitutional LawFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessEqual Protection
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Mexia v. Tooke

The City of Mexia contracted with J.E. Tooke and Sons for curbside collection, but later terminated the agreement citing budgetary constraints. Tooke sued the City for breach of contract, and the trial court denied the City's plea to jurisdiction and ruled in favor of Tooke. On appeal, the central question was whether section 51.075 of the Texas Local Government Code waives sovereign immunity for home-rule municipalities. The appellate court examined the statutory language and Supreme Court precedents on immunity waiver, concluding that the 'plead and be impleaded' language does not constitute a clear and unambiguous waiver. Furthermore, the court rejected arguments that the City waived immunity through partial performance or by acting in a proprietary capacity, as solid waste removal is a governmental function. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityHome-Rule MunicipalitiesWaiver of ImmunityBreach of ContractTexas Local Government CodeGovernmental FunctionsProprietary FunctionsPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
33
Case No. 13-0605
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2015

Humana Insurance Company v. Dolores Mueller

The Supreme Court of Texas addressed whether a private engineering firm, Brown & Gay, contracted by a governmental unit, is entitled to sovereign immunity when sued for negligence. The firm was responsible for designing road signs and traffic layouts for the Westpark Tollway, where a fatal accident occurred. The Court concluded that extending sovereign immunity to the private contractor does not align with the doctrine's underlying purposes, primarily protecting the public treasury from unforeseen expenditures. It highlighted that contractor costs are factored into bids and covered by insurance, unlike unexpected government litigation. The Court further reasoned that sovereign immunity should not cover private entities exercising independent discretion, as Brown & Gay's design decisions were its own, not direct government mandates. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision, denying sovereign immunity to Brown & Gay.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityPrivate Contractor LiabilityNegligenceTexas Supreme CourtPublic Works ContractsIndependent DiscretionTort ClaimsJudicial PrecedentImmunity Waiver
References
32
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Altman

Taria Marie Altman suffered an injury and subsequently developed an infection due to foreign matter left in a wound after treatment by Dr. Regina Smith. Altman sued Dr. Smith and the Lake Whitney Memorial Hospital/Lake Whitney Medical Center for negligence. The Hospital was granted summary judgment based on sovereign immunity, and the claims against it were severed. Dr. Smith then moved for summary judgment, claiming governmental employee immunity as an employee of the governmental hospital. The trial court denied Dr. Smith's motion for summary judgment, finding a factual dispute regarding her employment status. This appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, concluding that Dr. Smith did not conclusively prove her status as a governmental employee for immunity purposes.

Governmental Employee ImmunitySummary JudgmentMedical MalpracticeIndependent ContractorHospital LiabilityTexas Tort Claims ActJudicial AdmissionNegligenceAppealInterlocutory Appeal
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vasura v. Acands

Plaintiff Vasura initiated a personal injury lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, alleging asbestos exposure. Defendant Atlas Turner, Inc. removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity of citizenship and 'foreign state' status under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Vasura moved to remand, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The federal court, presided over by Senior District Judge Haight, rejected Atlas Turner's claims, finding it was not a foreign state during the relevant exposure period (1969) or at the time of filing (1999). Additionally, diversity jurisdiction was deemed absent at the time of removal due to the presence of a non-diverse defendant, Georgia Pacific, and a New York defendant, Rapid-American Corporation, whose joinder was not considered fraudulent. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion, remanding the case to New York Supreme Court, New York County.

Asbestos ExposurePersonal InjuryFederal Removal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionForeign Sovereign Immunities ActFSIARemand MotionSubject Matter JurisdictionFraudulent JoinderForum Defendant Rule
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 1,234 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