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

Freedom Communications, Inc. v. Coronado

This interlocutory appeal concerned a media defendant's (Freedom Communications, Inc.) motion for summary judgment in a defamation and invasion of privacy lawsuit. The plaintiffs (Coronado) alleged that Freedom published a political advertisement falsely accusing them of child abuse. The trial court judge, Abel Limas, denied Freedom's motion. Subsequently, Limas pleaded guilty to federal racketeering, admitting he accepted a bribe for his ruling in this case, making him constitutionally disqualified. Due to the judge's disqualification, his order was void, thus depriving appellate courts of jurisdiction to address the merits. The court vacated the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Judicial DisqualificationJudicial CorruptionVoid OrderSummary JudgmentInterlocutory AppealAppellate JurisdictionBriberyRacketeeringDefamationInvasion of Privacy
References
22
Case No. 01-17-00146-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2019

Michael Fallon, M.D. v. the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson as Officer for the Public Information for the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Michael Fallon, M.D. sued the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA) after they denied his request for certain information, claiming it was held by an affiliated private entity, the MD Anderson Physicians Network. The trial court dismissed Fallon's suit. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Fallon's mandamus claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the Cancer Center had a right of access to the Physicians Network's records, thereby making the information "public information" under the PIA. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Fallon's declaratory judgment claim, stating that the Declaratory Judgments Act does not waive sovereign immunity for such claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Public Information ActSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentMandamusGovernmental BodyNon-profit OrganizationPhysicians NetworkMedical Peer ReviewSummary JudgmentPlea to Jurisdiction
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brownstone Publishers, Inc. v. New York City Department of Buildings

The petitioner publishing company sought information from the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) in a computer tape format. The DOB offered the information in hard copy, citing no obligation to accommodate format preference, despite the petitioner's claim of substantial cost and difficulty in re-digitizing hard copies. The court, noting New York's Public Officers Law, emphasized the requirement for 'full' or 'maximum' access to records, which includes computer tapes or discs. It determined that providing over a million pages in hard copy would not constitute reasonable or maximum access. The court found no significant hardship for the DOB to provide the data electronically at the petitioner's expense. Consequently, the CPLR article 78 petition was granted, directing the DOB to provide the electronic records in computer tape format.

Freedom of Information LawPublic Officers LawInformation FormatElectronic RecordsHard CopyData AccessCPLR Article 78Government TransparencyCommercial InterestsNew York City Department of Buildings
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Health Care Information Council v. Seton Health Plan, Inc.

Seton Health Plan, Inc., a licensed health maintenance organization (HMO), failed to file its annual Health Plan Employer Data Information Set (HEDIS) reports for 1999 and 2000 with the Texas Health Care Information Council, leading to a dispute over civil penalties. The State, through the Attorney General, initially demanded $153,000, interpreting 'each act of violation' as each day of non-compliance, while Seton contended the maximum penalty was $10,000 per unfiled report. Seton filed a declaratory judgment action to construe the statute, and the district court sided with Seton, assessing a minimum penalty of $1,000 for each report. The State appealed, raising issues of mootness, sovereign immunity, the penalty amount, denial of injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the district court's interpretation of the penalty, the assessed penalties, and the denial of injunctive relief, but remanded the issue of the State's attorney's fees.

Declaratory JudgmentStatutory ConstructionCivil PenaltiesSovereign ImmunityInjunctive ReliefAttorney's FeesHEDIS ReportHealth Maintenance OrganizationTexas Health and Safety CodeAdministrative Procedure Act
References
43
Case No. 03-02-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2002

Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General v. Seton Health Plan, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by the Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General, against Seton Health Plan, Inc. The core dispute centered on the interpretation of civil penalties for Seton's failure to file annual Health Plan Employer Data Information Set (HEDIS) reports as required by the Texas Health and Safety Code. Seton sought a declaratory judgment asserting that the maximum penalty for such a violation was $10,000 per report, while the State initially pursued a penalty based on each day of violation. The district court sided with Seton on the maximum penalty, assessed minimum penalties of $1,000 for each of the two unfiled reports, denied the State's request for injunctive relief, and ordered the State to pay Seton's attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's declaratory judgment, the denial of injunctive relief, and the penalty assessment. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the issue of the State's attorney's fees, ruling that the State was statutorily entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under Government Code section 402.006(c) due to its recovery of a civil penalty.

Texas LawHealth Care RegulationHEDIS Report ViolationCivil PenaltiesDeclaratory Judgment ActionSovereign Immunity WaiverInjunctive Relief DeniedAttorney's Fees AwardStatutory ConstructionAdministrative Law
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morser v. AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Plaintiff Roy Morser filed an age discrimination complaint against defendant AT & T Information Systems (ATT-IS) after being laid off during a company-wide reduction-in-force. The court initially granted summary judgment in favor of ATT-IS, prompting Morser to file a motion for reargument. Morser based his motion on recent Second Circuit employment discrimination decisions, Montana and Ramseur, arguing that the court had overlooked or misapplied summary judgment standards, particularly regarding intent and drawing inferences in favor of the non-moving party. The court granted the motion for reargument, but upon reconsideration, reaffirmed its original decision to grant summary judgment to ATT-IS. The court found that its initial ruling had properly applied summary judgment standards and distinguished the facts of Morser's case from the precedents cited, noting the context of a massive layoff and lack of specific evidence of discriminatory intent.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentReduction-in-Force (RIF)Rule 56 Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 3(j) Civil Rules S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y.Rule 59(e) Fed.R.Civ.P.Reargument MotionEmployment LawDisparate TreatmentSecond Circuit Precedent
References
20
Case No. 2012 WL 3756270
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2012

American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

This case involves the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), a pro-Israeli advocacy group, challenging the Metropolitan Transit Authority's (MTA) refusal to display a political advertisement on buses. The ad, which called for support for Israel and opposition to Jihad, was rejected by the MTA for violating its 'no-demeaning standard,' which prohibits ads demeaning individuals or groups based on characteristics like religion or national origin. AFDI sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that the standard violated their First Amendment rights. The court found that the MTA's standard was content-based because it selectively prohibited demeaning speech only for certain protected characteristics, while allowing it for others. Consequently, the court granted AFDI's motion for a preliminary injunction, deeming the MTA's standard unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

First AmendmentFreedom of SpeechPolitical AdvertisingPublic Forum DoctrineDesignated Public ForumContent-Based RestrictionStrict ScrutinyPreliminary InjunctionMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityAdvertising Standards
References
40
Case No. 15-25-00138-cv
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2025

Shamar D. Bradley v. Texas Office of the Attorney General and Texas Department of Information Resources

Appellant Shamar D. Bradley appealed the trial court's denial of his Motion for Injunctive Relief. Appellee Texas Department of Information Resources (DIR) argues that Appellant is not entitled to a temporary injunction. DIR contends that Appellant lacks a probable right to the relief sought, either due to a lack of standing for his claims or because his claims are barred by sovereign immunity. Furthermore, DIR asserts that Appellant is not in danger of suffering a probable, imminent, or irreparable injury without a temporary injunction. Therefore, DIR requests the Court to affirm the trial court's order denying injunctive relief and dismiss Appellant's appeal.

Whistleblower ActSovereign ImmunityInjunctive ReliefAppellate ProcedureEmployment LawState AgencyDue Process ViolationRetaliationCopyright InfringementJudicial Review
References
94
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. v. State

Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. and Independent Review Incorporated, both Independent Review Organizations (IROs), appealed a trial court's judgment denying their request to exempt certain records from disclosure under the Public Information Act (PIA). They sought to prevent the release of information pertaining to their reviewers, reviewer contracts, and compensation terms, arguing that this information was either 'confidential by law' or fell under the commercial or financial information exception of the PIA. The Texas Department of Insurance, having received the initial information request, had interpreted its rules to protect patient-specific data provided *to* IROs, not data provided *by* IROs as part of their certification application. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the appellants failed to demonstrate that any exception to public disclosure applied to the disputed information.

Public Information ActOpen Records ActConfidentiality ExemptionCommercial InformationFinancial InformationIndependent Review OrganizationsIRO CertificationMedical NecessityUtilization ReviewTrade Secrets
References
12
Case No. 03-23-00459-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2025

Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance v. the Texas Department of Agriculture and Sid Miller, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner

Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA) appealed the dismissal of its challenge against the Texas Department of Agriculture's Produce Safety Rules. FARFA argued that these rules imposed additional burdens on small-scale farms, contravening federal regulations and exceeding the Department's statutory authority. The challenged rules concerned definitions of 'egregious condition', 'verification of status' procedures for farm entry, and general 'right of entry' provisions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's final judgment, holding that FARFA's challenges were ripe but found the rules procedurally and substantively valid, not authorizing unreasonable searches, and not unconstitutionally vague. The decision upheld the Department's broad delegated powers to administer and enforce produce safety regulations.

Produce Safety RulesAdministrative LawRulemaking AuthorityConstitutional ChallengeFourth AmendmentVagueness DoctrineFood Safety Modernization ActTexas Department of AgricultureFarm RegulationsDeclaratory Judgment
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 1,433 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