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. 15-24-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2024

Cecile Erwin Young, in Her Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc.; And Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc. v. Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction and the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction issued by the 353rd Judicial District of Travis County. The appellants, including Cecile Erwin Young (Executive Commissioner of HHSC), Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc., and Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc., are challenging the lower court's decision. The appellees (Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company) had sought to enjoin the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) from proceeding with STAR & CHIP and STAR Kids managed care procurements. The core legal arguments revolve around whether HHSC's procurement processes violated Texas law, thereby rendering the intended contract awards unlawful ultra vires acts, and whether the appellees' claims are barred by sovereign immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The appellants contend that the district court abused its discretion by granting the injunction and denying the plea.

Appellate CourtTemporary InjunctionPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsProcurement DisputeManaged Care ContractsMedicaidCHIPTexas Health and Human Services Commission
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Murphy v. Wal-Mart Associates' Group Health Plan

Hazel and Charlie Murphy sued Wal-Mart Associates’ Group Health Plan and Prudential Health Care Plan after the Plan denied coverage for Mr. Murphy's high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplant for Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. The Murphys alleged the Wal-Mart Plan acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying benefits and their subsequent appeal, and brought state law claims against Prudential. The court found that Wal-Mart Plan's decision was based on medical expert opinions and was not arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, it determined that ERISA preempted all state law claims against Prudential. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for both defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims.

ERISAEmployee BenefitsHealth InsuranceSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious StandardMedical NecessityHigh-Dose ChemotherapyAutologous Bone Marrow TransplantNon-Hodgkin’s LymphomaPlan Administrator Discretion
References
28
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. 07-09-00163-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2010

Potter County, Texas as Plan Administrator for the Health Benefits Plan for the Employees of Potter County, Texas v. Ronda Tuckness and Michael Tuckness

Potter County, acting as the plan administrator for its employee health benefits plan, appealed an order that denied its plea to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit was filed by Ronda and Michael Tuckness, seeking health care benefits after the County denied Michael Tuckness's claim for back surgery costs due to an occupational injury exclusion. The County contended it was immune from suit. The appellate court found that the County's governmental immunity had not been waived by the requests for declaratory relief, the terms of the health plan contract, or the County's conduct. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the Tucknesses' case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Governmental ImmunityImmunity WaiverDeclaratory JudgmentContract LawHealth BenefitsPlan AdministratorOccupational Sickness/InjuryJurisdictionPlea to JurisdictionInterlocutory Appeal
References
20
Case No. 03-02-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2002

Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General v. Seton Health Plan, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by the Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General, against Seton Health Plan, Inc. The core dispute centered on the interpretation of civil penalties for Seton's failure to file annual Health Plan Employer Data Information Set (HEDIS) reports as required by the Texas Health and Safety Code. Seton sought a declaratory judgment asserting that the maximum penalty for such a violation was $10,000 per report, while the State initially pursued a penalty based on each day of violation. The district court sided with Seton on the maximum penalty, assessed minimum penalties of $1,000 for each of the two unfiled reports, denied the State's request for injunctive relief, and ordered the State to pay Seton's attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's declaratory judgment, the denial of injunctive relief, and the penalty assessment. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the issue of the State's attorney's fees, ruling that the State was statutorily entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under Government Code section 402.006(c) due to its recovery of a civil penalty.

Texas LawHealth Care RegulationHEDIS Report ViolationCivil PenaltiesDeclaratory Judgment ActionSovereign Immunity WaiverInjunctive Relief DeniedAttorney's Fees AwardStatutory ConstructionAdministrative Law
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Humana Health Plan, Inc. v. Nguyen

Humana Health Plan, Inc. initiated this action against Patrick Nguyen, David Abney, and Crady, Jewett & McCulley, LLP, under ERISA, seeking to enforce plan terms and obtain equitable relief. Abney and Crady were later dismissed, leaving Nguyen as the sole defendant. The central dispute revolved around Humana's claim for reimbursement of $274,607.84 in medical expenses paid by the Plan for Nguyen, following his receipt of a $255,000 third-party settlement from an automobile accident. The court granted Humana's motion for summary judgment, denying Nguyen's cross-motion, concluding that Humana functioned as a Plan fiduciary with standing and that the Plan's terms unambiguously established an equitable lien on the settlement funds in Humana's favor.

ERISASummary JudgmentFiduciary DutyReimbursementSubrogationEquitable LienPlan AdministratorPlan ManagerSettlement FundsAutomobile Accident
References
23
Case No. 03-13-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2014

Texas Department of State Health Services And Kyle Janek, in His Official Capacity as Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Marcela Balquinta Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Family Planning and Preventative Health Services, Inc. Planned Parenthood Association of Hidalgo County Texas, Inc. Planned Parenthood Association of Lubbock, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning judicial jurisdiction and procedure regarding the exclusion of Planned Parenthood entities from the Texas Women’s Health Program (TWHP), a state-funded health benefits program. The Planned Parenthood entities, along with an enrollee, challenged new administrative rules implemented by the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) and its Executive Commissioner, Kyle Janek, which barred providers affiliated with organizations that perform or promote elective abortions. The appellate court analyzed whether the plaintiffs had constitutional standing and if the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over their claims, including those filed under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA). The court affirmed the district court's jurisdiction over the APA claims and requests for injunctive relief, finding a waiver of sovereign immunity under APA section 2001.038. However, it reversed and rendered judgment dismissing the UDJA claims, deeming them either redundant of the APA claims or not yet ripe for resolution.

Abortion PolicyWomen's Health ProgramMedicaidPlanned ParenthoodTexas Health PolicyStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Procedure ActDeclaratory JudgmentSovereign ImmunityConstitutional Standing
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pig Newton, Inc. v. Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan

Plaintiff Pig Newton, Inc. commenced an action against the Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan, Health Plan, and Individual Account Plan, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Plans’ Trust Agreements were invalid and unenforceable. The Defendants counterclaimed for delinquent contributions under ERISA. The core dispute revolved around "Controlling Employee Provisions" in the Trust Agreements, which obligated employers to contribute for Controlling Employees for a specified number of hours and weeks regardless of actual hours worked. Pig Newton argued these provisions were invalid, not properly incorporated, or conflicted with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The Court, applying federal common law and an arbitrary and capricious standard of review for the Directors' interpretation, found the provisions valid, properly incorporated, and not in conflict with the CBAs, concluding that Szekely (Pig Newton's sole owner) qualified as a Controlling Employee. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and awarding Defendants the sought-after contributions, interest, auditors’ fees, and liquidated damages.

ERISAMultiemployer PlanPension PlanHealth PlanDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentTrust AgreementsCollective Bargaining AgreementsControlling Employee ProvisionsDelinquent Contributions
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Prescription Plan, Inc. v. American Postal Workers Union AFL-CIO Health Plan

This case involves appeals and a cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County. Defendant American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO Health Plan (APWU-HP) appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment concerning the fourth, fifth, and fourteenth causes of action. Defendant Administrative Consultants, Inc. (ACI) appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment regarding the tenth and eleventh causes of action. The plaintiff cross-appealed the partial dismissal of the first, third, and sixth causes of action. The appellate court reversed the order for the defendants, granting their motions for summary judgment and dismissing all causes of action asserted against them. The order was affirmed insofar as cross-appealed by the plaintiff, upholding the partial dismissals against the plaintiff.

Summary JudgmentContract DisputeOral RepresentationsStatute of FraudsEquitable EstoppelAppellate ProcedureDismissal of ClaimsBreach of ContractMootness DoctrineAuthority to Contract
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sibley-Schreiber v. Oxford Health Plans (N.Y.), Inc.

This class action involves several plaintiffs challenging Oxford Health Plans' denial of insurance coverage for Viagra. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiffs countered that pursuing these remedies would have been futile given the defendants' public 'no pay' and 'six pill' policies and the lack of clear appeal processes. The court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiffs had made reasonable efforts to seek coverage and that further administrative appeals would have been futile.

ERISAInsurance CoverageHealthcare BenefitsViagraErectile DysfunctionExhaustion of Administrative RemediesFutility DoctrineClass ActionMotion to DismissSummary Judgment
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 3,095 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