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

Texas General Indemnity Co. v. Welch

This worker's compensation case involved an appeal by Texas General Indemnity Company against a judgment finding Robert L. Welch totally and permanently disabled. Texas General argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to a variance between Welch's claim before the Industrial Accident Board (low back injuries) and his initial petition (ear injury), which was later amended to reflect a back injury. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the amended pleading corrected the variance and the plea to jurisdiction was properly overruled. Additionally, the court found any error in excluding Welch's original petition to be harmless and concluded that the jury's findings regarding producing cause and total disability were supported by the evidence.

worker’s compensationappellate reviewplea to jurisdictionvariance in pleadingsamended pleadingsjurisdictional errorexclusion of evidenceharmless errorjury instructionssufficiency of evidence
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas General Indemnity Co. v. Eisler

Justice Hedges dissents, agreeing with the majority on the duration of disability for impairment income benefits but arguing that the Galveston County district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The dissent contends that challenges to administrative rules, such as those promulgated by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (TWCC), are mandated by statute to be heard exclusively in a Travis County district court. Hedges cites various Texas Government and Labor Codes to support the view that this venue provision is jurisdictional and mandatory, not merely permissive. The dissent highlights that Texas General Indemnity (TGI) itself previously argued for mandatory Travis County venue in a separate suit. Given that TGI’s Galveston County petition against Eisler functionally challenges the validity of TWCC rules, Justice Hedges concludes that the Galveston County court had no jurisdiction. Therefore, Hedges would reverse the trial court’s summary judgments and dismiss the causes of action without prejudice for want of jurisdiction.

JurisdictionTravis CountyGalveston CountyAdministrative Rule ChallengeStatutory ConflictWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMandatory VenueSubject Matter JurisdictionDissenting OpinionDeclaratory Judgment Action
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graves v. Kraft General Foods

This opinion addresses an appeal originating from general sessions court judgments favoring Russell Graves and Beverly Cross against Kraft General Foods. Kraft improperly appealed these judgments to the Chancery Court of Gibson County, which subsequently transferred the cases to the Circuit Court of Gibson County. The appellate court determined that the chancery court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear appeals from general sessions courts and also lacked statutory authority to transfer such appeals. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that Kraft failed to timely file its appeals in a proper court. The circuit court's denial of the motions to dismiss filed by Graves and Cross is therefore reversed.

Appellate ProcedureSubject Matter JurisdictionTransfer of CasesGeneral Sessions Court AppealChancery CourtCircuit CourtStatutory AuthorityTimeliness of AppealMotion to DismissJudicial Economy
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Keefe v. General Accident Insurance

Plaintiff Violet O'Keefe initiated an action against General Accident Insurance Company, alleging disparate treatment and retaliation based on age and sex, violating Title VII, ADEA, and New York Human Rights Law. O'Keefe claimed a discriminatory work environment and unlawful termination following her refusal of a proposed job transfer. The defendant argued O'Keefe's performance was poor and the transfer was a lateral move. The District Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the federal discrimination and retaliation claims, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether General Accident's reasons for termination were pretextual. However, the Court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the state law claims, declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VIIADEARetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie Case
References
19
Case No. 13-16-00315-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2016

in Re Accidental Fund General Insurance Company

The relators, Accident Fund General Insurance Company and Kriste Henderson, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for temporary relief. They seek to compel the trial court to grant their plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that the claims fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation. The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas granted their motion for temporary relief, staying all trial court proceedings pending further order or final decision of the Court. The real parties in interest, Ricky Sayaz, Nelda Ramirez, and Coil Tubing Solutions, LLC, are requested to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus within ten days.

MandamusTemporary ReliefStay OrderJurisdictionWorkers' CompensationTexas Court of AppealsPlea to the JurisdictionOriginal ProceedingRelatorReal Party in Interest
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Electric Co. v. Kunze

Appellee Curtis T. Kunze was awarded damages by a jury after being discharged from his employment with General Electric Company and General Electric Supply Company in violation of Texas Worker’s Compensation Statutes, article 8307c. The damages included lost past and future wages and benefits, and exemplary damages for willful and malicious termination. General Electric appealed, contending that Kunze was fired for poor performance, not for filing a worker's compensation claim, and challenged the sufficiency of evidence for damages and the recoverability of exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding ample evidence to support the jury's findings of wrongful termination and the awarded damages. It also clarified that future lost wages are recoverable under the statute and that prejudgment interest was already factored into the damage awards.

Worker's CompensationWrongful TerminationRetaliatory DischargeExemplary DamagesLost WagesLost BenefitsFuture DamagesPrejudgment InterestEvidence AdmissibilityExpert Witness
References
9
Case No. 03-03-00105-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2004

Atmos Energy Corporation and Enermart Energy Services Trust v. Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as the Attorney General of Texas

This is an appeal from the dismissal of appellants' request for declaratory relief. Atmos Energy Corporations and Enermart Energy Services Trust, natural gas sellers, sued the Office of the Attorney General in Travis County, seeking a declaration that a state statute setting the price of natural gas sold to agricultural users did not apply to them, or alternatively, was unconstitutional. The OAG filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted, dismissing the request. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the dismissal, holding that the appellants failed to plead a ripe controversy, thus lacking subject-matter jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the issues were not fit for judicial review and denying relief would not constitute a hardship, given the speculative nature of the alleged controversy.

Declaratory Judgment ActRipeness DoctrineSubject Matter JurisdictionConstitutional LawStatutory InterpretationTexas Court of AppealsNatural Gas PricingAgricultural UsersSovereign ImmunityPlea to the Jurisdiction
References
16
Case No. 03-10-00648-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2013

Assignees of Best Buy, OfficeMax, and CompUSA v. Susan Combs, State of Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas

This case concerns an appeal by "Assignees of Best Buy, OfficeMax, and CompUSA" against the Texas Comptroller and Attorney General. The Assignees sought sales tax refunds on rebated amounts, claiming assignments from the retailers allowed them to pursue these claims. The Comptroller denied the claims, arguing that the settlement-class counsel lacked authority to represent individual class members in administrative proceedings, as the tax code does not permit class-action refunds. The trial court granted the Comptroller's plea to the jurisdiction, ruling that the initial orders appointing settlement-class counsel for individual administrative proceedings were void due to a lack of judicial power under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the trial courts lacked jurisdiction to appoint class counsel for individual claims outside the class action, thereby confirming that the Assignees failed to exhaust administrative remedies and sovereign immunity was not waived.

Sales Tax RefundClass ActionPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityAdministrative RemediesJurisdictionCollateral AttackRule 42 (Texas Civil Procedure)Attorney AppointmentImplied Powers
References
59
Case No. 03-21-00429-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2022

Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of Texas And Ken Paxton In His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General v. Harris County, Texas

This case involves an interlocutory appeal by Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton challenging a trial court's denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and the issuance of a temporary injunction. The core legal question is whether Governor Abbott, under the Texas Disaster Act, can issue an executive order (GA-38) that prohibits local governmental entities, such as Harris County, from implementing face-covering requirements. Harris County officials contend these mandates are vital for public health during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's orders, concluding that the trial court possessed subject-matter jurisdiction and did not err in granting the temporary injunction, as the Governor's actions were likely ultra vires.

Texas Disaster ActExecutive Order GA-38Face Covering MandatesCOVID-19 MitigationLocal Government AuthorityGubernatorial PowersUltra Vires ClaimTemporary InjunctionSubject Matter JurisdictionSovereign Immunity
References
32
Case No. 03-00-00370-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2000

Texas General Indemnity Company v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Todd Brown in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission And Michael L. MacIk

Texas General Indemnity Company (TGI) filed a declaratory judgment action in Travis County challenging the validity of Rule 130.8 of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC). The district court granted TWCC's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed TGI's suit, also conditionally denying TGI's summary judgment motion and granting TWCC's. TGI appealed, arguing mandatory jurisdiction in Travis County and that Rule 130.8 conflicted with the Labor Code. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, applying res judicata due to a prior adverse ruling against TGI on the same issue in Texas Gen. Indem. Co. v. Eisler. Additionally, the court affirmed the conditional judgment, concluding Rule 130.8 is a valid exercise of the Commission's rulemaking authority and does not conflict with the Texas Labor Code.

Administrative Rule ChallengeDeclaratory JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsImpairment Income BenefitsRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelStatutory InterpretationRulemaking AuthorityTexas Administrative Procedure ActLabor Code
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 7,259 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