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. 01-17-00146-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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Act for Health v. Case Management Associates, Inc.

Plaintiffs Act for Health d/b/a Professional Case Management (PCM) and its subsidiary PCM of Tennessee, Inc. (PCMT) sued defendant Case Management Associates, Inc. d/b/a Freedom Care (Freedom Care). Plaintiffs provide in-home care under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) and allege Freedom Care operates unlawfully in Tennessee without proper licensing and a certificate of need. Plaintiffs also claimed tortious interference with business relationships, tortious inducement to breach employment agreements, violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and common law unfair competition. The Court found Freedom Care's licensing arrangement with Jellico Community Hospital unlawful and granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on that issue. It denied summary judgment for both parties on the TCPA and inducement claims, but granted summary judgment to Freedom Care on the unfair competition claim. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining claims.

Workers' CompensationHome Health ServicesLicensing RegulationsCertificate of NeedTortious InterferenceUnfair CompetitionTennessee Consumer Protection ActRestrictive CovenantsTrade SecretsSummary Judgment
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mamarella v. County of Westchester

Richard Mamarella, a pro se petitioner, initiated an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 against Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro and the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office. Mamarella sought specific documents pertaining to his plea bargain and sentence, citing violations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Privacy Act, and the New York Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that both the FOIA and the Privacy Act are inapplicable to state agencies or individuals. Furthermore, the court chose not to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state-level FOIL claim.

Habeas CorpusPro Se LitigantFreedom of Information Act (FOIA)Privacy ActNew York Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)State AgenciesFederal JurisdictionSummary JudgmentPlea BargainSentencing
References
13
Case No. 03-03-00550-CV; 03-03-00551-CV; 03-03-00553-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2005

City of San Antonio, Texas Acting by and Through the City Public Service Board of San Antonio v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

The Texas Court of Appeals considered the Public Utility Commission's rule 25.93 regarding the confidentiality of competitively sensitive information submitted by municipal utilities. Appellants, a group of cities, challenged subsections (c)(2) and (g)(3) of rule 25.93, arguing they exceeded the Commission's statutory authority and conflicted with the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) section 552.133. This TPIA section allows public power utilities to designate information as "competitive matter," making it presumptively exempt from disclosure, with only the attorney general or a court empowered to override this protection under narrow grounds. The court agreed with the appellants, holding that rule 25.93, as written, would improperly permit the Commission to unilaterally determine the validity of confidentiality claims, thereby contravening its duties under the utilities code and the TPIA. The decision reversed and remanded the case, declaring subsections (c)(2) and (g)(3) of rule 25.93 invalid.

Public Utility CommissionCompetitive InformationTexas Public Information ActRule ValidityStatutory AuthorityConfidentialityMunicipal UtilitiesElectricity MarketAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
25
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesby v. Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.

Glenn Wesby was injured while working on Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.'s premises, employed by Labor Express Temporary Services. He sued Act Pipe for negligence. Act Pipe sought summary judgment, arguing that Wesby's claims were barred by Texas Workers’ Compensation statutes under either the Staff Leasing Services Act or the borrowed servant doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Wesby was Act Pipe’s borrowed servant and Act Pipe's workers’ compensation insurance applied, thus barring his common law claims, irrespective of whether notice of coverage was provided.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentBorrowed Servant DoctrineStaff Leasing Services ActWorkers' Comp ExclusivityTemporary EmploymentNegligence ClaimsAppellate AffirmationEmployer Affirmative DefenseTexas Labor Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nadler v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the Tribeca Community Association, and the 67 Vestry Street Tenants Association sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the disclosure of a redacted joint venture agreement. The FDIC, acting as receiver for the failed American Savings Bank (ASB), withheld information related to ASB's subsidiary, Amore Holdings, Inc., citing FOIA Exemption Four for trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. The court, applying the National Parks test, determined that public disclosure would significantly impair the FDIC’s ability to maximize profits from its receivership assets and cause substantial competitive harm to Amore. Consequently, the court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint.

FOIAExemption FourCommercial InformationConfidentialityFDIC ReceivershipSummary JudgmentGovernment AgencyReal Estate DevelopmentFreedom of Information Act
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seife v. National Institutes of Health

Plaintiff Charles Seife, acting pro se, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to obtain records concerning "special governmental employees" (SGEs) who serve on NIH advisory panels. Seife specifically requested documents from the ethics files of 44 NIH SGEs related to managing conflicts of interest, including "recusal lists" and "waiver determinations." NIH produced partially redacted documents, withholding information based on FOIA Exemptions 3 and 6, which protect confidential financial disclosure reports and personal privacy. The court granted Seife's motion in part, ordering NIH to release unredacted waiver determinations concerning SGEs' financial interests and relationships, but allowed redaction of identifying information about spouses or dependent children, and upheld the withholding of recusal lists. The decision balanced the SGEs' privacy interests against the public's interest in government transparency and accountability regarding potential conflicts of interest.

FOIANational Institutes of HealthSpecial Governmental EmployeesConflict of InterestRecusal ListsWaiver DeterminationsEthics in Government ActFinancial DisclosurePrivacy InterestsGovernment Transparency
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adamowicz v. Internal Revenue Service

Plaintiffs Michael Adamowicz and Elizabeth Fraser, acting as executors of the Estate of Mary Adamowicz, filed an action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). They sought to compel the production of documents withheld by the IRS, related to three FOIA requests made in December 2005 and April 2007 concerning the IRS's examination of their mother's Estate and ensuing legal disputes. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The Court found that the IRS's searches for responsive documents were adequate and that the withheld documents fell within FOIA exemptions, specifically Exemption 2 (internal agency information), Exemption 3 (statutory exemptions under I.R.C. § 6103), Exemption 5 (privileges like deliberative process, attorney-client, and work-product), Exemption 6 (personnel and medical information), and Exemption 7 (law enforcement purposes, including invasion of privacy and confidential sources). Consequently, the Government's motion for summary judgment was GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' motion was DENIED.

FOIA ExemptionsIRS DisclosureTaxation LitigationAgency Search AdequacyDeliberative ProcessAttorney Work-ProductConfidentiality AssuranceSummary Judgment MotionGovernment Information ActPrivacy Interests
References
49
Showing 1-10 of 7,874 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