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. 13-10-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2011

Department of Aging and Disability Services, a Texas State Agency v. Deborah K. Powell

The Department of Aging and Disability Services appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in Deborah K. Powell's workers' compensation retaliation case. Powell, a former food-service worker, alleged she was terminated in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim after an on-the-job injury. The Department argued that its sovereign immunity had not been clearly and unambiguously waived, citing Texas Government Code Ann. § 311.034. The appellate court reviewed the plea to the jurisdiction de novo and relied on the Texas Supreme Court's precedent in Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez, which held that the State Applications Act (SAA) contained a waiver of sovereign immunity for such claims. The court found that legislative intent to waive immunity for workers' compensation retaliation claims remained clear and unambiguous despite the later enactment of § 311.034. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of the Department's plea to the jurisdiction, concluding that the Department, as a state agency, is not immune from claims of workers' compensation retaliation.

Sovereign immunityPlea to the jurisdictionWorkers' compensation retaliationState Applications ActGovernmental immunity waiverLegislative intentAppellate reviewTexas Labor CodeTexas Government CodeInterlocutory appeal
References
8
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. 03-02-00462-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2003

Texas Municipal Power Agency v. Public Utility Commission and City of Bryan

In this interlocutory appeal, the Texas Municipal Power Agency challenged a Public Utility Commission (PUC) order concerning the allocation of electricity transmission costs to the City of Bryan. Municipal Power Agency filed both an APA appeal and a Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) claim, the latter of which was dismissed by the district court on grounds of sovereign immunity and duplication of remedies. The Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal, ruling that the UDJA waives sovereign immunity when interpreting an agency's general statutory authority, even if a parallel APA appeal addressing specific agency actions is ongoing. The court emphasized that the UDJA action sought a broader declaration of the Commission's fundamental authority, distinguishing it from merely challenging a particular agency order. Therefore, the case was remanded for further proceedings on the declaratory judgment claim.

Sovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment Act (UDJA)Administrative Procedure Act (APA)Subject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPublic Utility CommissionElectricity Transmission RatesStatutory InterpretationAgency AuthorityDuplicate Remedies
References
35
Case No. NO. 03-18-00668-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2020

John Hatchett, Sandra Hatchett, and JPH Capital LLP v. West Travis County Public Utility Agency

John and Sandra Hatchett and JPH Capital LLP (collectively, the Hatchetts) appealed the trial court’s order granting the plea to the jurisdiction filed by the West Travis County Public Utility Agency (PUA). The PUA contended that the Hatchetts lacked standing and were immune from suit. The Hatchetts sought declarations to invalidate the PUA’s policies limiting density and impervious coverage on their property and to grant them vested-rights protection under Chapter 245 of the Local Government Code. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Hatchetts’ UDJA claims as ultra vires but reversed and remanded the dismissal of their Chapter 245 vested-rights claim, finding the PUA's immunity was waived and the 'utility connections' exception did not apply.

Vested RightsChapter 245 LGCPlea to JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment Act (UDJA)Ultra Vires ClaimPublic Utility AgencyWater ServiceRegulatory AuthorityStanding
References
60
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. 13-10-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2011

Reyes Urbina v. Designer Homes Co., Inc., Onesimo Martinez, Javier Villescas [Erroneously Sued as Javier Bilolescas or Billescas], Compass Bank and Gregory S. Kazen, in His Capacity Only as Substitute Trustee

Deborah K. Powell, a former employee of the Department of Aging and Disability Services, filed a workers' compensation retaliation suit after her employment was terminated following an on-the-job injury and subsequent workers' compensation claim. The Department appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity and arguing no clear waiver existed under the Texas Government Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, relying on established precedent from Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez which found an implicit yet clear waiver of sovereign immunity for workers' compensation retaliation claims within the State Applications Act. The court concluded that the subsequent enactment of Government Code section 311.034 did not negate this waiver, upholding the legislative intent to allow such suits against state agencies.

Workers' CompensationRetaliationSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionState AgencyTexas Labor CodeGovernment CodeWaiver of ImmunityAppellate ReviewStatutory Construction
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hastings v. South Central Human Resource Agency

This is an appeal regarding the termination of two employees, Hart Hastings and Teri Laster, by the South Central Human Resource Agency (SCHRA). The trial court found SCHRA acted illegally, arbitrarily, and capriciously in summarily discharging the plaintiffs without proper notice and hearing, ordering their reinstatement with back pay. SCHRA appealed, arguing it is not a state agency, the Grievance Committee hearing did not violate the "Sunshine Law" (Open Meetings Act), and the trial court erred in interpreting its personnel policies regarding misconduct. The appellate court determined SCHRA is a state agency, but reversed the trial court's finding that the Grievance Committee violated the Sunshine Law, stating the committee was not a "governing body." Furthermore, the appellate court found the Grievance Committee did not act fraudulently, illegally, or arbitrarily in upholding the terminations, as "falsification of records" and "improper program management" could be construed as misconduct justifying immediate dismissal under SCHRA's policies.

Government agency statusEmployee terminationDue processPersonnel policiesAdministrative lawOpen meetings actSunshine lawJudicial reviewMisconductFalsification of records
References
7
Case No. Nos. 03-14-00283-CV and 03-14-00360-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Education Agency and Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education, in His Official Capacity v. American Youthworks, Inc., D/B/A American Youthworks Charter School Honors Academy, Inc., D/B/A Honors Academy And Azleway Inc., D/B/A Azleway Charter School

This case involves an appeal by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and Commissioner of Education Mike Morath against temporary injunctions granted to three charter holders: American YouthWorks, Inc., Honors Academy, Inc., and Azleway, Inc. The charter holders sued after the Commissioner initiated charter revocation proceedings under new 2013 legislation targeting underperforming open-enrollment charter schools. The district court had temporarily enjoined further revocation actions. The appellate court examined whether the charter holders' claims, including constitutional and ultra vires assertions, could overcome sovereign immunity and invoke the district court's inherent jurisdiction, given statutory prohibitions on judicial review. The court ultimately concluded that the pleadings did not sufficiently invoke such inherent jurisdiction, and thus, the claims were barred by sovereign immunity, leading to the vacating of the injunctions and dismissal of the suits.

Education LawCharter SchoolsCharter RevocationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunitySubject-Matter JurisdictionTemporary InjunctionsDeclaratory ReliefUltra Vires Claims
References
71
Case No. 03-02-00462-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2003

TEXAS MUN. POWER AGEN. v. Pub. Util. Com'n

Texas Municipal Power Agency (Municipal Power) challenged an order by the Public Utility Commission (Commission) concerning the allocation of electricity transmission costs to the City of Bryan. Municipal Power filed an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) appeal and later amended its petition to include a declaratory judgment action under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA), seeking a declaration on the scope of the Commission's statutory authority under the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA). The trial court granted pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing the UDJA action on grounds of sovereign immunity and duplication of remedies available in the APA appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the UDJA waives sovereign immunity for claims seeking an interpretation of an agency's general statutory authority and that the UDJA action was distinct from and broader than the APA appeal, which only addressed specific agency orders.

Administrative LawDeclaratory Judgment ActAdministrative Procedure ActSovereign ImmunityJurisdictionPublic Utility CommissionElectricity Transmission CostsStatutory InterpretationInterlocutory AppealAppellate Procedure
References
44
Case No. M2015-01488-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2016

The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County v. The Civil Service Commission of The Metropolitan Government of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee

An officer with the Davidson County Sheriff's Department, Jerry Clark, was terminated for dishonesty after filing reports alleging he was attacked during training, which an investigation found to be exaggerated. An administrative law judge initially ordered his reinstatement with a ten-day suspension, a decision adopted by the Civil Service Commission. However, the Metropolitan Government sought judicial review, and the chancery court reversed the Commission's decision, finding it unsupported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancery court's ruling, concluding that the ALJ's findings were not backed by material evidence and remanded the case to the Commission for a determination of appropriate disciplinary action.

Police MisconductTermination of EmploymentDishonestyAdministrative ReviewJudicial PrecedentCivil Service LawSubstantial Evidence RuleWorkers' Compensation ClaimsRetaliation AllegationsDue Process Rights
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,777 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