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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Classen v. Irving Healthcare System

Carol Classen sued her former employer, Irving Healthcare System, alleging retaliatory discharge for pursuing workers’ compensation benefits, a claim prohibited by Texas law. Irving Healthcare System, a municipal hospital authority and governmental entity, asserted immunity from suit. The trial court and court of appeals sided with Irving Healthcare, concluding that governmental immunity had not been waived for such claims under article 8307c. However, citing a recent precedent set in *City of La Porte v. Barfield*, the Supreme Court of Texas determined that governmental immunity had been partially waived in wrongful discharge cases. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with *Barfield*.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsGovernmental ImmunityWaiver of ImmunityMunicipal Hospital AuthoritySummary JudgmentRemandTexas LawEmployer-Employee DisputeLabor Code
References
2
Case No. 15-25-00011-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2025

The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, the University of Texas System, and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center v. Gensetix, Inc.

This document is Appellee Gensetix, Inc.'s brief in surreply to an appeal brought by The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, et al., before the Fifteenth Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas. Gensetix argues that the district court correctly denied the Appellants' plea to the jurisdiction. The core of Gensetix's argument centers on the Appellants' alleged abuse of Eleventh Amendment immunity, characterizing it as an unlawful 'Taking' of Gensetix's exclusive commercialization rights related to patents. The brief distinguishes the current case from Curadev Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. The Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. by highlighting the presence of disputed jurisdictional facts and the Appellants' invocation of sovereign power. Gensetix contends that the duration of the misappropriation is irrelevant to liability and asserts that some of the Appellants' arguments regarding contract interpretation are unpreserved. The appellee requests that the appellate court affirm the district court's decision.

Eleventh AmendmentSovereign ImmunityEminent DomainTakings ClausePatent LitigationIntellectual Property RightsCommercialization RightsJurisdictional PleaAppellate ProcedureTexas Courts
References
31
Case No. 03-05-00837-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2008

Diana Foster v. Texas Retirement System, Trustee for Texas Public Retired School Employees Group Insurance Program Aetna Life Insurance Company And Aetna Health Management, LLC

Diana Foster, a retired teacher, sued the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) and its insurance administrators, Aetna, after her claim for intravenous immune globulin infusion therapy (IVIG) was denied. She asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the insurance code, and deceptive trade practices, along with a request for declaratory judgment. The trial court granted appellees' pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice, citing sovereign immunity. Foster appealed, arguing her declaratory judgment claim was not barred, legislative immunity was waived, the administrative procedures act provided for judicial review, and Aetna was not protected by sovereign immunity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding that sovereign immunity applied to TRS and, by extension, to Aetna as its agent, and that Foster's claims did not fall under any exceptions for judicial review or waiver of immunity.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernment AgencyInsurance DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative Procedures ActAgency AdjudicationJudicial ReviewBreach of ContractDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingDeceptive Trade Practices Act
References
26
Case No. 10-01-183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2004

Michael Richards v. Texas A&M University System and Texas A&M University

Michael Richards, a maintenance worker, sued Texas A&M University System and Texas A&M University (TAMU) for wrongful termination, alleging retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. The trial court dismissed the suit based on sovereign immunity. Richards appealed, arguing that the Texas Workers' Compensation Act's waiver of governmental immunity for some state educational institutions but not others, specifically TAMU, violated his equal protection rights. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding a rational basis for the distinction, namely the self-insurance capabilities of TAMU, which justifies not waiving immunity for anti-retaliation suits against them. Thus, the court upheld the constitutionality of the statute.

Sovereign ImmunityWorkers' CompensationAnti-Retaliation LawEqual Protection ClauseConstitutional LawGovernmental ImmunityRational Basis ReviewSelf-InsuranceEmployment LawWrongful Termination
References
36
Case No. 14-18-00896-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

City of Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner Controller Chris Brown Council Members Amy Peck, Tarsha Jackson, Abbie Kamin, Carolyn Evans-Shabazz, Dave Martin, Tiffany D. Thomas, Greg Travis, Karla Cisneros, Robert Gallegos, Edward Pollard, Martha Castex-Tatum, Mike Knox, David Robinson, Michael Kubosh, Letitia Plummer, and Sallie Alcorn And Director of Finance Tantri Emo v. Houston Municipal Employee Pension System Board Chairman Sherry Mose Board Vice-Chairman Lenard Polk Board Secretary Rhonda Smith And Board Trustees Roderick J. Newman, Roy W. Sanchez, Lonnie Vara, Barbara Chelette, Denise Castillo-Rhodes, David Donnelly, Edward J. Hamb II, and Adrian Patterson

This case is a continuation of a dispute between the Houston Municipal Employee Pension System and the City of Houston regarding statutorily required pension payments. The Pension System sought a writ of mandamus to compel the City to make these payments and asserted ultra vires claims against city officials. The City raised counterclaims and third-party claims, challenging the Pension System's standing and asserting governmental immunity. The trial court denied the City's plea to the jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for the Pension System. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, rejecting the City's arguments concerning independent contractors, 401(k) program eligibility, retrospective relief, contractual claims, and res judicata.

Governmental ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsPension SystemMunicipal EmployeesMandamusSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationTexas Constitutional LawAppellate ReviewEmployee Benefits
References
30
Case No. 13-10-400-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2011

Christus Spohn Health System Corporation D/B/A Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi-Memorial v. John Ven Huizen and Vanessa Ven Huizen, Individually and as Next Friends of Giuliana Sophia Ven Huizen, Minor Child

CHRISTUS Spohn Health System Corporation (Spohn) appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss in a healthcare liability case brought by John and Vanessa Ven Huizen. Spohn contended it was entitled to governmental immunity as a 'hospital district management contractor' under the Texas Health and Safety Code, §§ 285.071 and 285.072. The Ven Huizens sued Spohn and its employee, Nurse Angelica Dulak, for alleged malpractice during their daughter's birth. The appellate court held that Spohn met the statutory requirements to be a governmental unit, thereby granting it immunity. Consequently, Nurse Dulak, as an employee of a governmental unit, was also immune from suit. The court reversed the trial court's decision and rendered judgment dismissing the case.

Governmental ImmunityHospital District Management ContractorTexas Tort Claims ActHealthcare Liability ClaimsMedical MalpracticePlea to JurisdictionMotion to DismissStatutory InterpretationDue Process ChallengeEqual Protection Challenge
References
22
Case No. 03-11-00596-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2012

the University of Texas System v. Gloria G. Ochoa

Gloria Ochoa, an employee of The University of Texas System, was injured and sought disability benefits. An administrative hearing officer concluded she was disabled. The University sought judicial review but later non-suited its claims. Ochoa moved for attorney's fees, but the University filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity. The district court denied the plea. Citing the precedent set in Manbeck v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., the appellate court reversed the district court's order, holding that the University, as a state agency, is immune from claims for attorney's fees under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. The court rendered judgment dismissing Ochoa's claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationSovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityAttorney's FeesJudicial ReviewPlea to JurisdictionTexas LawState AgencySelf-InsuredAppellate Procedure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Foster v. Teacher Retirement System

Diana Foster, a retired teacher, appealed the dismissal of her lawsuit against the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) and its insurance administrators, Aetna Life Insurance Company and Aetna Health Management, LLC. Foster initially sued after Aetna denied coverage for her prescribed intravenous immune globulin infusion therapy (IVIG). Her claims included breach of contract, bad faith, insurance code violations, deceptive trade practices, and a request for declaratory judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that TRS and Aetna were protected by sovereign immunity, which had not been waived by legislation or provided for judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act. Consequently, the court found no error in dismissing Foster's suit rather than abating it.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernment Agency ImmunityInsurance DenialsHealth Benefit PlansDeclaratory Judgment ActionsAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewAgent LiabilityContractual DisputesAppellate Procedure
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston Municipal Employees Pension System v. Craig E. Ferrell, Jr.

This case is an interlocutory appeal initiated by the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) challenging a trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The appellees, including Craig E. Ferrell Jr., sought a judicial declaration of their entitlement to pension benefits and service credit within HMEPS, contending HMEPS misinterpreted governing statutes. HMEPS asserted governmental immunity and exclusive jurisdiction as grounds for dismissal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that a declaratory judgment action to construe statutes and declare rights, without seeking monetary damages, does not trigger governmental immunity or the exclusive jurisdiction doctrine. The court declined to rule on ripeness and amount-in-controversy issues, as these were not addressed by the trial court.

Governmental ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentPension Benefits EligibilityStatutory ConstructionInterlocutory AppealExclusive Jurisdiction DoctrineSubject Matter JurisdictionWaiver of ImmunityHouston Municipal Employees Pension SystemPublic Employee Pensions
References
22
Case No. No. 01-03-00925-CV.
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2005

HOUSTON MUN. EMP. PENSION SYSTEM v. Ferrell

The Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief brought by Craig E. Ferrell Jr. and 29 other plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of their entitlement to pension benefits and service credit for their time as police officers and cadets with the City of Houston. HMEPS argued governmental immunity and exclusive jurisdiction over pension benefit eligibility. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the plaintiffs' declaratory judgment action, seeking to interpret statutes and declare rights, did not trigger governmental immunity. The court also determined that HMEPS did not have exclusive jurisdiction in this context, distinguishing the case from a prior precedent. The court did not rule on ripeness or amount in controversy as these issues were not decided by the trial court in the interlocutory appeal.

Governmental ImmunityExclusive JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentPension BenefitsStatutory InterpretationMunicipal EmployeesPolice CadetsService CreditAdministrative LawSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 3,675 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