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. 03-01-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 2001

Rick Perry, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas Henry Cuellar, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Texas v. Alicia Del Rio, Phyllis Dunham and Jeremy Wright

This case is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction by the District Court of Travis County. Appellants, including the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Secretary of State of Texas, argued that they were not 'governmental units' for the purpose of interlocutory appeal and that the appellees' redistricting claims were not ripe. The Third District Court of Appeals at Austin affirmed the district court's order, holding that state officials acting in their official capacities are indeed 'governmental units' under the Civil Practice & Remedies Code. The court also found that the consolidated redistricting lawsuit was ripe for judicial consideration, particularly after the state legislature adjourned without enacting a new congressional redistricting plan. Lastly, the court clarified that a prior federal court's retained jurisdiction over 1990 census-based redistricting did not preclude state court jurisdiction over challenges based on the 2000 census.

Interlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental UnitRipeness DoctrineOfficial CapacityRedistrictingCongressional DistrictsJurisdictionTexas ConstitutionCivil Practice & Remedies Code
References
27
Case No. No. 08-22-00029-CV (TC# 2021DCV1132)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2023

Ricardo A. Samaniego, in His Official Capacity as County Judge, Carlos Leon, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner, David Stout, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner, Illiana Holguin, in Her Official Capacity as County Commissioner, Carl L. Robinson, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner v. Associated General Contractors of Texas, Highway, Heavy, Utilities & Industrial Branch and a Brothers Milling, LLC

The El Paso County Commissioners Court, including County Judge Ricardo A. Samaniego and Commissioners, appealed the denial of their plea to the jurisdiction. They were sued by Associated General Contractors of Texas and A Brothers Milling, LLC, who alleged the Commissioners Court acted ultra vires in setting prevailing wage rates for heavy-highway construction projects in El Paso County. The Appellants argued governmental immunity shielded them and that their wage determinations were final. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, concluding that the Appellees had sufficiently pleaded an ultra vires claim, which falls within the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction. The court clarified that ultra vires acts by public officials are not considered acts of the state and therefore are not subject to the finality clause.

Governmental ImmunityUltra Vires ActPrevailing Wage RatePublic WorksSubject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Government CodeStatutory InterpretationEl Paso County
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'HALLORAN v. Barnhart

The plaintiff, Kathleen O’Halloran, sought judicial review of a final determination by the Commissioner of Social Security denying her Disability Insurance Benefits. The District Court found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) made several legal errors in assessing O’Halloran’s disability claim. These errors included failing to properly evaluate her mental impairments and functional limitations, not fully developing the record with "other source" evidence from treating therapists, nurses, and family, and misapplying standards regarding her residual functional capacity and ability to perform past work. The court also noted the ALJ's incorrect evaluation of the materiality of O'Halloran's alcohol abuse. Consequently, the court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its order.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsMental ImpairmentParanoid SchizophreniaAlcohol AbuseAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacitySequential Evaluation ProcessMental Impairments EvaluationPast Relevant Work
References
12
Case No. 03-04-00744-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2006

Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. North East Independent School District and Dr. Richard A. Middleton, in His Official Capacity as Custodian of Public Records for North East Independent School District

This case addresses whether a memorandum from a school principal to a teacher, which outlines complaints and directs corrective actions, qualifies as a confidential "document evaluating the performance of a teacher" under Texas Education Code Ann. § 21.355. The Attorney General argued it was merely a reprimand and therefore not confidential, while the North East Independent School District (NEISD) contended it was an evaluation. The district court sided with NEISD, granting their motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, concluding that the memorandum's content, including the principal's judgment on performance issues, corrective directives, and provisions for further review, indeed constituted an evaluation, thereby making it confidential and exempt from public disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act.

Public Information ActTeacher Performance EvaluationConfidentialitySchool District RecordsSummary Judgment ReviewStatutory InterpretationGovernment TransparencyEducation CodeAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
18
Case No. ADJ10336191
Regular
Jan 18, 2023

JEFFERY BLUM vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This case involves an employer's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the finding that the applicant sustained new and further permanent disability to his knees. The employer's arguments regarding apportionment for the lumbar spine and bias of the medical evaluator were rejected, as the lumbar spine issue was settled by prior stipulation and bias was not raised timely. The Board found the medical evaluator's opinions on knee impairment constituted substantial evidence, despite a functional capacity evaluation.

New and further disabilityPermanent disabilityApportionmentStipulations with Request for AwardQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Lumbar spineBilateral knee impairmentSubstantial evidencePetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Main Evaluations, Inc. v. State

The claimant, Main Medical Evaluations, entered into contracts with the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) to perform consultative medical evaluations. OTDA terminated these contracts, alleging the claimant failed to disclose professional disciplinary proceedings against its chief medical officer, Arvinder Sachdev, and submitted false information during the bidding process. Following the dismissal of its claim in the Court of Claims, the claimant appealed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that OTDA had legitimate grounds for termination due to the claimant's misrepresentations and failure to report substantial contract-related issues concerning Sachdev's integral role. Additionally, the court rejected the claimant's equal protection argument, finding no evidence of selective enforcement based on impermissible considerations.

Contract TerminationProfessional MisconductFalse RepresentationEqual ProtectionGovernment ContractsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractMedical LicensingAdministrative ProceedingsDue Diligence
References
5
Case No. 17-0713
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2019

Luis Garcia v. City of Willis, Leonard Reed, in His Official Capacity as [Mayor] of the City of Willis, James Nowak in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Willis, Hector Forestier, in His Official Capacity as City Manager of the City of Willis

Luis Garcia, representing a putative class, filed suit against the City of Willis and its officials, challenging the constitutionality of red-light camera statutes and a city ordinance, seeking declaratory, injunctive relief, and a refund of civil penalties paid. The trial court denied the city's plea to the jurisdiction, but the court of appeals reversed, concluding Garcia failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that governmental immunity barred his reimbursement claim. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Garcia lacked standing for his prospective claims due to having already paid the fine and facing no imminent future harm. Furthermore, his reimbursement claim was barred by governmental immunity because he voluntarily paid the fine without utilizing administrative remedies that would have provided a stay. Regarding his constitutional-takings claim, the Court found that although governmental immunity does not apply, Garcia was still required to exhaust administrative remedies before initiating a takings claim in district court, as the administrative process had the potential to moot his claim. Consequently, the Court affirmed the dismissal of Garcia's claims.

Red-light camerasConstitutional challengeAdministrative remediesStandingGovernmental immunityUltra viresDeclaratory judgmentInjunctive reliefCivil penaltyTraffic enforcement
References
32
Case No. 03-11-00594-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2014

Michael Hamilton v. Mark Washington, in His Capacity as City of Austin Civil Service Director Art Acevedo, in His Capacity as City of Austin Chief of Police The City of Austin, Gary Cobb and Stephen Edmonds, in Their Capacity as Members of Austin Firefighters

Michael Hamilton, an Austin Police Department officer, was indefinitely suspended and sought an appeal with the Austin Firefighters’ and Police Officers’ Civil Service Commission. His appeal was rejected as deficient for failing to include specific statutory language. Hamilton then sued various City of Austin officials and the City, seeking declaratory relief, a writ of mandamus, and to set aside the Commission's decision, along with a breach of contract claim. The district court granted the City's plea to the jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, ruling that the district court had jurisdiction over constitutional and ultra vires claims against the officials but lacked jurisdiction for reinstatement, back pay, lost benefits, and the breach of contract claim due to unexhausted administrative remedies.

Governmental ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionDeclaratory Judgment ActMandamusUltra ViresCivil Service ActExhaustion of Administrative RemediesCollective Bargaining AgreementStandingConstitutional Law
References
50
Case No. ADJ10033983 ADJ11112700
Regular
Jul 08, 2019

PABLO PEREZ vs. TAYLOR FARMS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted applicant Pablo Perez's Petition for Removal, rescinding the prior finding that a Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) was not a reasonable and necessary medical-legal expense. The WCAB found that an FCE, recommended by Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator Dr. Ali Soozani to assess permanent impairment, provides crucial objective data not fully captured by subjective complaints or a standard physical examination. The Board reasoned that while a physical therapist conducts the FCE, this is permissible under Labor Code section 3209.5 for medical treatment and does not violate Labor Code section 4628 when viewed as a distinct diagnostic tool supporting the QME's overall evaluation. Consequently, the WCAB issued a new Finding of Fact and Order deeming the FCE reasonable and necessary.

Functional Capacity EvaluationMedical-Legal ExpensePanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPermanent ImpairmentActivities of Daily LivingSubstantial EvidenceAlmaraz/GuzmanLabor Code Section 4628Diagnostic ToolMedical Opinion
References
4
Case No. 524528
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2018

Matter of Bloomingdale v. Reale Constr. Co. Inc.

Claimant, who suffered multiple work-related injuries in 1992 and 2011, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision classifying him with a 33% loss of wage-earning capacity and suspending awards due to a lack of labor market attachment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination regarding claimant's attachment to the labor market, finding it supported by substantial evidence of minimal job search efforts. However, the Court reversed the Board's assessment of a 33% loss of wage-earning capacity. It concluded that the medical evidence, extensive functional limitations, and limited vocational skills of the 55-year-old claimant did not support such a low impairment rating, necessitating a re-evaluation. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings to correctly ascertain claimant's loss of wage-earning capacity.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityLabor Market AttachmentMedical ImpairmentVocational FactorsAppellate Division Third DepartmentRemittalBack InjuryNeck Injury
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 3,582 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