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. 04-12-00681-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2013

the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings v. Carol Birch, Charles Homer, Ann Landeros and Carol Wood

This is an interlocutory appeal concerning the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction filed by the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in a wrongful termination case. Former Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) Carol Birch, Charles Homer, Ann Landeros, and Carol Wood sued SOAH, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) and common law wrongful termination. The SOAH appealed the trial court's denial of its pleas to the jurisdiction, arguing the ALJs failed to provide prima facie evidence for their claims, thus negating sovereign immunity waiver. The appellate court affirmed the denial of SOAH's plea for Wood's and Birch's age and gender discrimination claims, and Birch's retaliation claim for seeking accommodation due to sufficient evidence. However, the court reversed and rendered judgment dismissing all claims by Landeros and Homer, Wood's retaliation claim, Birch's disability discrimination claim, and Birch's retaliation claim related to speaking out against disparate treatment, due to insufficient evidence.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionConstructive DischargeAdverse Employment ActionTexas Labor CodeTCHRAAdministrative Law Judges (ALJs)Age Discrimination
References
52
Case No. 03-05-00176-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2007

LHR Enterprises, Inc. Task Services, Inc. Business Staffing, Inc. Harry Sewill Rick Chapman And Transglobal Mortgage, Inc. v. Mike Geeslin, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Texas Texas Department of Insurance And State Office of Administrative Hearings for the State of Texas

The appellants challenged the Commissioner of Insurance's authority to refer them to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) for alleged unauthorized insurance practices, seeking a declaratory judgment. The district court granted a plea to the jurisdiction, which led to this appeal. While the appeal was pending, the Commissioner issued a final order absolving the appellants of wrongdoing. The Texas Court of Appeals subsequently dismissed the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, deeming the controversy moot and affirming the prohibition against advisory opinions.

JurisdictionDeclaratory Judgment ActSovereign ImmunityMootness DoctrineAdministrative HearingsInsurance RegulationTexas Civil PracticeAppellate ProcedureJusticiable ControversyRipeness
References
18
Case No. 03-21-00120-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2022

Brian Manley, Chief of Austin Police Department Brian Manley, Individually Commander Mark Spangler, Austin Police Department Lt. Jerry Bauzon, Austin Police Department Officer Benjamin Bloodworth, Austin Police Department Officer Collin Fallon, Austin Police Department Sgt. Eric Kilcollins, Training Coordinator, Austin Police Academy And Officer Shand, Lead Instructor, Stress Reaction Training, Austin Police Academy v. Christopher Wise

Christopher Wise, a former Austin Police Academy cadet, sued Brian Manley (APD Chief) and six other APD officers after sustaining severe injuries, including heat exhaustion and stroke, during a stress reaction training in October 2018. Wise alleged that officers intentionally discouraged cadets from hydrating despite high temperatures and failed to provide timely medical aid. The defendants sought dismissal under the Texas Tort Claims Act's election-of-remedies provisions. The district court dismissed claims against the City of Austin and APD but not against the individual officers. The appellate court reversed the district court's decision, ruling that Wise's claims against the individual officers were based on conduct within the scope of their employment and could have been brought under the TTCA, thus mandating their dismissal.

Texas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityElection of RemediesScope of EmploymentPolice MisconductCadet InjuryHeat IllnessSupervisor NegligenceAppellate CourtReversal
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

STATE OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT v. Allen

Jerome D. Allen, a juvenile correction officer, was injured in March 2004 during employment. The State Office of Risk Management (SORM), administrator of workers' compensation, accepted head and shoulder injuries but disputed a lower back injury. A contested case hearing and subsequent appeals panel both found Allen's compensable injury extended to his lower back. SORM sought judicial review, and a jury also found in Allen's favor. SORM appealed, arguing the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence (a hearing officer's decision and order) and that the verdict was factually insufficient. The appellate court found any error in admitting the decision and order harmless, as the evidence was cumulative and also presented through SORM's own expert witness. The court also found the evidence factually sufficient to support the jury's verdict, noting Allen's testimony about new back pain symptoms post-injury and the compensability of aggravating a pre-existing condition. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewHearsay EvidenceFactual SufficiencyJury VerdictCompensable InjuryLower Back InjuryPre-existing ConditionMedical RecordsChiropractor Testimony
References
6
Case No. 2014-06-0048
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2015

Cardaciotto, David v. FEDEX Office

The employee, David Cardaciotto, filed for an expedited hearing seeking medical benefits for an inguinal hernia sustained while working for FedEx Office. The injury occurred after lifting heavy packages in September 2014, but he initially mistook the symptoms for constipation and was officially diagnosed with a hernia on September 19, 2014. He reported the injury to his employer on October 14, 2014, which FedEx Office argued was untimely. The court, however, excused the late notice, finding that Cardaciotto did not understand the seriousness of his condition until diagnosed. Ultimately, the Court ruled that Cardaciotto demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing and ordered FedEx Office to provide a panel of general surgeons, with payment for surgery contingent upon a determination of medical causation.

Hernia InjuryWorkers' CompensationMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingTimely NoticeMedical CausationBurden of ProofInguinal HerniaEmployer LiabilitySelf-Insured Employer
References
5
Case No. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

Gerard Matzen// Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office v. Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office// Cross-Appellee, Gerard Matzen

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capone v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District

The petitioner, an employee of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District (UFSD), was terminated after two adult students reported sexually explicit conversations and offers of sexual acts from him. The UFSD charged the petitioner with 18 specifications of misconduct under Civil Service Law §75. Following a hearing where 17 charges were sustained, the hearing officer recommended termination, which the UFSD adopted. The petitioner initiated an article 78 proceeding, arguing insufficient notice, lack of substantial evidence, and an excessively severe penalty. The court confirmed the determination, finding the charges adequate, supported by substantial evidence from student testimonies, and that termination was not disproportionate given precedent, despite the petitioner's previously unblemished 19-year record.

Employment terminationSexual misconductAdministrative reviewCivil Service LawSufficiency of evidencePenalty proportionalityArticle 78Due processHearing officer findingsPublic education employee
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. 03-15-00642-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2015

Travis County Sheriff's Office Senior Certified Peace Officer Dennis Tumlinson v. Carolyn Barnes

Carolyn Barnes sued Officer Dennis Tumlinson, a Travis County Sheriff’s Office Senior Certified Peace Officer, and other Travis County employees, alleging civil and constitutional rights violations, conspiracy, assault, and perjury. Barnes sought monetary damages, injunctive relief, and a declaratory judgment. The Travis County Defendants, including Tumlinson, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court granted dismissal for most defendants but denied it for Officer Tumlinson. This document is Officer Tumlinson’s appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss. The appellant asserts that the court lacks jurisdiction and that he is entitled to immunity based on affirmative defenses of official immunity, statute of limitations, and res judicata. The brief details the history of Barnes's arrests and prior lawsuits against various entities and individuals in Travis and Williamson Counties, framing the current case as a malicious prosecution and collateral attack on criminal judgments.

Official ImmunityQualified ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsRes JudicataCivil Rights ViolationsConstitutional RightsFalse ArrestMalicious ProsecutionAggravated Perjury
References
132
Showing 1-10 of 6,666 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