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. 3-92-059-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 1993

Texas Department of Human Services v. George Green

George Green, a former architect for the Texas Department of Human Services (DHS), sued his employer for retaliatory firing under the Whistleblower Act. Green reported alleged fraud and corruption within DHS, subsequently facing investigations into his telephone use and sick leave, which led to his termination. A jury found in Green's favor, awarding him significant actual and exemplary damages, along with attorney's fees. DHS appealed the judgment, raising fifteen points of error, including claims of governmental immunity and various procedural missteps by the trial court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the Whistleblower Act unambiguously waives governmental immunity for state entities and finding no reversible errors in the lower court's rulings.

Whistleblower ActRetaliatory FiringGovernmental Immunity WaiverDamages AssessmentAppellate ProcedureEvidence AdmissibilityJury SelectionExpert Witness TestimonyJudicial DiscretionAbuse of Discretion
References
55
Case No. 03-03-00048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2003

Loretta Conly Bascom v. Texas Department of Human Services and Texas Workforce Commission

Loretta Conly Bascom, formerly employed by the Texas Department of Human Services, appealed the district court's affirmation of the Texas Workforce Commission's decision to deny her unemployment benefits. The Commission had concluded that Bascom was terminated for misconduct related to her handling of a client's eligibility for food stamps. On appeal, Bascom raised multiple issues, including the denial of a jury trial, alleged procedural errors, and challenges to credibility determinations. The appellate court found no merit in her arguments, concluding that the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that no reversible errors occurred during the district court proceedings. Consequently, the judgment affirming the denial of benefits was affirmed.

Employment TerminationUnemployment BenefitsMisconductJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceJury Trial RightPro Se LitigantAdministrative RecordCredibility DeterminationConflict of Interest
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal
References
3
Case No. W2023-01200-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2024

Ronnie Bennett v. Tennessee Department of Human Services

Ronnie Bennett appealed a decision by the Tennessee Department of Human Services (DHS) denying his recertification application for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. DHS determined his income exceeded eligibility requirements due to undisclosed Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits in addition to his reported Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits. The Hearing Officer affirmed DHS's decision after Bennett failed to provide adequate verification. The Chancery Court for Shelby County affirmed the Hearing Officer's ruling, and the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no procedural errors and substantial evidence supported the denial of benefits.

SNAP benefitsrecertification denialincome eligibilityVA benefitsSSD benefitsadministrative appealjudicial reviewpro se litigantprocedural rules complianceevidence admissibility
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case addresses whether an arbitration proceeding, which determined a job classification was not discriminatory under a collective bargaining agreement but explicitly stated it lacked authority to rule on Human Rights Law violations, bars a subsequent proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights. Employees Betty Lingle and Joan Skinner initially filed a grievance and later complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging sex discrimination after their termination. Following an arbitration decision that denied relief but did not address Human Rights Law issues, their employer, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., sought a judgment declaring the Division lacked jurisdiction due to election of remedies. The court, presided over by John W. Sweeny, J., held that the arbitration did not constitute an election of remedies precluding the State Division from proceeding, as the arbitrator had no authority to decide Human Rights Law issues. Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, allowing the Human Rights Commission to continue with the employees' complaints.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies
References
3
Case No. 03-12-00293-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2013

Southwest Pharmacy Solutions, Inc. D/B/A American Pharmacies v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Thomas Suehs, Solely in His Official Capacity as Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission

Southwest Pharmacy Solutions, Inc. d/b/a American Pharmacies appealed a trial court's judgment granting a plea to the jurisdiction filed by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and its Executive Commissioner. American Pharmacies challenged HHSC's rulemaking obligations and specific rules related to pharmacy benefits under the Texas Medicaid managed care (MMC) program. They argued that HHSC failed to regulate reimbursement rates for pharmacies and did not comply with statutory requirements for analyzing the economic impact on small businesses. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that HHSC was not obligated to set reimbursement rates under the MMC model and had substantially complied with the relevant government code regarding small business impact. The court also determined that American Pharmacies lacked a justiciable interest as their economic losses stemmed from legislative changes rather than the challenged rules.

Medicaid Managed CarePharmacy BenefitsReimbursement RatesAdministrative Procedure ActDeclaratory JudgmentPlea to the JurisdictionUltra ViresStatutory ConstructionSmall Business ImpactTexas Court of Appeals
References
37
Case No. 03-03-00355-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2004

Albert Hawkins, in His Capacity as Commissioner of Health & Human Services The Texas Health & Human Services Commission And the Texas Department of Health v. Dallas County Hospital District D/B/A Parkland Health and Hospital System

This case involves an appeal concerning the rules and formulas used to reimburse Texas teaching hospitals for graduate medical education (GME) costs from Medicaid funds. The core dispute is whether the Texas Health and Human Services Commission was legally mandated to use a specific statutory formula based on a hospital's annual actual GME costs, or if it could continue using its existing rule, which derived costs from a 1984 base-period figure adjusted for inflation, mirroring the federal Medicare approach. Dallas County Hospital District, operating Parkland Memorial Hospital, sued the department, alleging underpayment of over $72 million due to the use of the incorrect formula. The district court ruled in favor of Parkland, declaring the department's rules invalid. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the statutory formula for reimbursement was mandatory, while the department's discretion was limited to calculating variables within that prescribed formula, not to establishing an alternative method.

Medicaid reimbursementGraduate Medical EducationTeaching HospitalsStatutory interpretationTexas Health and Human Services CommissionParkland Memorial HospitalHealthcare fundingAdministrative lawJudicial reviewHealth policy
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 1983

Schuck v. State Division of Human Rights

Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, petitioned for annulment of an order by the Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a determination by the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The Commissioner found that Local 3 discriminated against minority trainees by shunting them into a slower 'M' program, denying them the 'MIJ' shortcut to 'A' journeyman status, and providing an inferior training curriculum compared to regular apprentices, thus violating the Human Rights Law. The Commissioner issued cease and desist orders and specific directives regarding training and advancement, including a conditional provision for automatic 'A' journeyman status without examination. The Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, upon judicial review, modified the order by deleting the directive that granted full 'A' journeyman status without further examination. Instead, the court mandated that affected individuals be afforded the opportunity to take the next scheduled 'A' examination, with appropriate preparatory instruction provided if needed. The rest of the Commissioner's order and determination were confirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationMinority Training ProgramApprenticeshipJourneyman StatusLabor UnionAffirmative ActionNew YorkVocational TrainingEqual Opportunity
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1981

MATTER OF MOHAWK FINISHING PRODS., INC. v. State Div. of Human Rights

This dissenting opinion concerns Michele Cushing, an employee of Mohawk Finishing Products Corporation, who was terminated after raising concerns about perceived sex discrimination, although actual discrimination was not proven. The State Division of Human Rights initially granted her relief for retaliation, which was affirmed by the Human Rights Appeal Board. However, the Appellate Division annulled and remitted the decision, distinguishing between protective clauses in the Human Rights Law. Justice Fuchsberg argues that the anti-retaliation provision should protect employees who reasonably believe a practice is discriminatory, even if later found lawful. He proposes reversing the Appellate Division's order and remitting the case to the State Division of Human Rights for a specific finding on the reasonableness of Ms. Cushing’s belief.

Anti-retaliationHuman Rights LawSex DiscriminationReasonable BeliefEmployment LawDissenting OpinionAdministrative ReviewWorkplace RetaliationEmployee RightsJudicial Interpretation
References
11
Case No. 15-25-00013-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2025

State of Texas, the Texas Facilities Commission, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Mike Novak, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the TFC, and Rolland Niles, in His Official Capacity as Deputy Executive Commissioner for the System Support Services Division of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Broadmoor Austin Associates, a Texas Joint Venture

Broadmoor Austin Associates leased office space to the Texas government, specifically the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), through the Texas Facilities Commission (TFC). Rent has been unpaid for nearly two years due to alleged misconduct by state officials. Broadmoor asserts that sovereign immunity does not bar its claims for breach of contract, citing Chapter 114's express waiver for contracts involving construction and related services. Additionally, Broadmoor brings ultra vires claims against TFC Executive Director Mike Novak and HHSC Deputy Executive Commissioner Roland Niles, alleging their actions were beyond legal authority or a failure to perform ministerial duties. Broadmoor seeks prospective injunctive and declaratory relief to ensure these officials comply with state law, specifically regarding the availability of appropriated funds for the lease.

Sovereign ImmunityBreach of ContractUltra Vires DoctrineState AgenciesGovernment ContractsLease AgreementsLegislative AppropriationsExecutive AuthorityJudicial ReviewTexas Facilities Commission
References
69
Showing 1-10 of 3,564 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