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. 10-99-190-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 1999

City of Ennis, a Self-Insured Governmental Entity v. William J. Bryant

William J. Bryant filed a lawsuit against the City of Ennis seeking worker's compensation disability benefits due to a heart attack sustained during his employment as a police officer. A jury found in favor of Bryant, prompting the City of Ennis to appeal the decision. Prior to a ruling on the appeal, both parties reached a settlement agreement and filed an 'Agreed Motion to Dismiss Appeal and Cause'. In response, the Tenth Court of Appeals, citing Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a) and 43.2(e), granted the motion, vacated the trial court's judgment, and dismissed the case, with costs taxed against the party incurring them.

Worker's CompensationDisability BenefitsHeart AttackPolice OfficerAppellate ReviewSettlement AgreementDismissal of AppealVacated JudgmentSelf-Insured EmployerGovernmental Entity
References
1
Case No. E2012-02112-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2014

Larry Sneed v. The City of Red Bank, Tennessee

This case addresses whether the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) governs Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) claims against governmental entities and if there is a right to a jury trial for such claims in chancery court. The Court rejected the analysis from Young v. Davis, which had suggested the GTLA applied broadly to statutory claims against governmental entities, overruling it partially. Applying the Cruse v. City of Columbia analysis, the Court held that the THRA is an independent statute that removes governmental immunity and establishes legislative intent to provide a right to a jury trial for THRA claims against governmental entities in chancery court. Consequently, the Court of Appeals' judgment was reversed, and the trial court's transfer order was vacated, remanding the case to chancery court.

Sovereign ImmunityJury Trial RightAge DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeStatutory InterpretationGovernmental ImmunityTHRAGTLAChancery CourtInterlocutory Appeal
References
68
Case No. M2008-02060-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Hughes v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County

The case concerns a plaintiff injured while avoiding a front-end loader operated by a government employee. The plaintiff sued both the governmental entity, Metro, and the employee, Frank Archey, under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA). The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' findings, determining that the employee's act of intentionally frightening the plaintiff constituted an intentional tort of assault, not mere negligence. Consequently, Metro, the governmental entity, was immune from liability under the GTLA because there was no direct proof of its negligent supervision. The case was remanded for judgment to be entered against the employee, Frank Archey, as he was held personally liable for the intentional assault.

Governmental Tort LiabilityScope of EmploymentIntentional TortAssaultNegligenceSovereign ImmunityFront-end LoaderMetropolitan GovernmentEmployee LiabilityWorkers' Compensation
References
79
Case No. M2004-01910-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2005

Rickey W. Pendleton v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County

Rickey W. Pendleton sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County for injuries sustained during his arrest by metropolitan police officers, alleging assault and battery and vicarious liability through respondeat superior. The trial court granted summary judgment for the government, ruling that a standalone respondeat superior claim was insufficient under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) for intentional torts, requiring a separate negligence claim against the governmental entity. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that the GTLA mandates a direct showing of negligence by the governmental entity for intentional torts committed by its employees, and Pendleton failed to assert such a claim against the Metropolitan Government.

Governmental Tort Liability ActRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentIntentional TortsNegligenceAssault and BatteryPolice MisconductGovernmental ImmunityTennessee LawMunicipal Liability
References
6
Case No. 08-06-00058-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2007

in the Matter of Raul G. Sanchez, Twilah Sanchez v. State Office of Risk Management, a Self-Insured Governmental Entity

This is an appeal from a no-evidence summary judgment granted in favor of the State Office of Risk Management (SORM). Twilah Sanchez sought workers' compensation benefits after her husband, Raul Sanchez, died following a work-related single-car accident. SORM denied the claim, asserting Raul was intoxicated at the time of the accident based on blood alcohol tests taken hours after the incident. Sanchez presented expert testimony challenging the reliability of retrograde extrapolation, but her expert could not definitively state that Raul was not intoxicated. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Sanchez failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact that her husband's blood alcohol content was less than 0.08 at the time of the accident.

Intoxication DefenseSummary JudgmentNo-evidence Summary JudgmentRetrograde ExtrapolationBlood Alcohol Content (BAC)Expert TestimonyBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewAutomobile AccidentDeath Benefits
References
9
Case No. 2-05-408-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2006

Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool, a Self-Insured Governmental Entity, and the City of the Colony AND Brandon R. Burns and Juliann Burns, as Guardian for Brandon R. Burns v. Brandon R. Burns and Juliann Burns, as Guardian for Brandon R. Burns, and Texas Workers' Compensation Commission, Intervenor AND Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool, a Self-Insured Governmental Entity, and the City of the Colony

Dennis Hong appealed a jury verdict and trial court judgment in a suit stemming from an automobile accident involving Larry Bennett. Hong argued the trial court erred by admitting Bennett’s medical bill affidavits after Hong filed a timely controverting affidavit under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 18.001. The appellate court found Hong’s controverting affidavit was sufficient to contest the chiropractic expenses, but not those of a medical doctor, radiologist, or pharmacist. The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting both the initial affidavit for chiropractic expenses and the controverting affidavit, rather than requiring expert testimony. Because the jury's damage award was submitted in broad form, it was impossible to ascertain if the award was significantly influenced by the erroneously admitted evidence. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Automobile AccidentEvidentiary RulingMedical Bill AffidavitsControverting AffidavitTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 18.001Reasonableness and Necessity of Medical ExpensesExpert TestimonyAbuse of DiscretionHearsay RuleChiropractic Services
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wakefield v. Longmire

An Anderson County employee, involved in an accident, sued the other driver, Kimberly D. Longmire, and sought uninsured motorist coverage from Coregis Insurance Company, the county's carrier. Following a jury verdict for the employee, the trial court ruled that the employee's recovery against Coregis was not capped at $130,000 under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA). Coregis appealed, arguing its liability should be capped by the GTLA despite its $1,000,000 policy limit, referencing T.C.A. § 56-7-1201(a)(l). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, clarifying that GTLA limits apply to claims against governmental entities, not to an employee's claim against the entity's uninsured motorist carrier. The court also declined to award damages for a frivolous appeal.

Uninsured Motorist CoverageGovernmental Tort Liability ActInsurance Policy LimitsAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentFrivolous AppealStatutory InterpretationBodily Injury LiabilityWorkers' CompensationAnderson County Employee
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

University of Texas at Arlington v. Bishop

William Bishop, a former University of Texas at Arlington (UTA) employee, suffered a work-related injury, leading to UTA paying worker's compensation benefits. Bishop's attorney, Stephen Khoury, secured a $20,000 settlement from the negligent third party, Don Quoc Dao. UTA, a self-insured governmental entity, asserted a subrogation lien on the settlement, prompting Bishop to seek apportionment of attorney's fees from UTA's share. The trial court denied UTA's sovereign immunity defense, awarded Khoury $6,660 in fees from UTA's subrogated interest, and sanctioned UTA $3,000. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the labor code permits recovery of attorney's fees from self-insured governmental entities and upholding the sanctions.

Subrogation LienAttorney's FeesSovereign ImmunitySanctionsAppellate ReviewTexas Labor LawCivil ProcedureGovernmental ImmunitySelf-Insured EmployerThird-Party Liability
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beldon Roofing & Remodeling Co. v. San Antonio Water System

Beldon Roofing & Remodeling, Inc. appealed a summary judgment from a declaratory judgment action regarding the interpretation of Section 406.096 of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Beldon, an employer that opted out of the state's workers' compensation system, had its bid for a public reroofing project with San Antonio Water System (SAWS) rejected due to its lack of statutory workers' compensation coverage. Beldon argued that the Act allowed alternative insurance plans if satisfactory to the governmental entity. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Section 406.096 mandates governmental entities to require proof of workers’ compensation coverage as defined in Section 401.011(44) of the Texas Labor Code for contractors on public construction projects, prioritizing uniform employee protection on public works.

Workers' Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment AppealPublic ContractsGovernmental EntitiesContractor CoverageNon-subscriber EmployerLegislative IntentTexas Labor Code
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roettger v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County ex rel. Electric Power Board

This workers' compensation appeal addresses whether Tennessee's savings statute (T.C.A. § 28-1-105) can extend the limitations period against a governmental entity that has voluntarily accepted the provisions of the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act (T.C.A. § 50-6-106(5)). The plaintiff, injured on May 2, 1994, filed a claim that was voluntarily dismissed on February 15, 1996. A new complaint was filed on November 5, 1996, more than one year after the injury but within one year of the dismissal. The trial court ruled that the savings statute does not apply to a governmental entity protected by sovereign immunity. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed this decision, holding that voluntarily accepting the Workers’ Compensation Act does not imply submission to the separate savings statute, as there is no specific legislative authorization for saving suits against the State.

Sovereign ImmunitySavings StatuteWorkers' Compensation ActLimitations PeriodGovernmental EntityMunicipal CorporationVoluntary AcceptanceDismissalRemand
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,140 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