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

Hernandez v. Texas Department of Insurance

Hernandez, an insurance agent, had her license revoked by the Commissioner of Insurance. Her timely motion for rehearing was overruled by operation of law on January 16, 1995, after the Commissioner failed to act within 45 days. Hernandez filed for judicial review on March 3, 1995, after receiving a late notification. The trial court dismissed her petition as untimely. On appeal, Hernandez argued the agency had a duty to notify her of the motion being overruled by operation of law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding the Administrative Procedure Act does not require such notice, thus rendering Hernandez's petition for judicial review untimely.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewTimelinessMotion for RehearingOperation of LawNotice RequirementAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionStatutory InterpretationInsurance Agent
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartford Insurance Co. v. Crain

Hartford Insurance Company appealed the dismissal of its suit for judicial review of a Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (TWCC) appeals panel decision concerning the medical necessity of spinal surgery for Crain. The central legal question involved the applicable deadline for filing a petition for judicial review: either the 40-day period under Texas Labor Code Section 410.252 or the 30-day period under the Texas Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Section 2001.176. The trial court had granted Crain’s plea to the jurisdiction, ruling Hartford's appeal untimely based on the APA's 30-day deadline. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the more specific 40-day deadline provided in Labor Code Section 410.252 applies to all appeals-panel decisions, including those regarding medical necessity disputes, thus controlling over the APA's general provisions. The case was subsequently remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Workers' Compensation LawJudicial Review ProcessStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureFiling DeadlinesTexas Labor CodeAdministrative Procedure ActMedical NecessitySpinal Surgery DisputesSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
12
Case No. 03-09-00280-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2009

Justin Ryan McCarthy v. State

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, conditionally granted a petition for writ of mandamus filed by the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy. The Board challenged a trial court's order allowing discovery in judicial review suits initiated by three individual accountants concerning the Board's disciplinary decisions. The appellate court held that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not authorize the use of general discovery rules in judicial review proceedings, even when procedural irregularities are alleged. The court reasoned that while the APA provides for discovery at the agency level, it deliberately omits such provisions for judicial review, thereby limiting the scope of review to the agency record except for evidence of procedural irregularities.

Judicial ReviewAdministrative LawMandamusDiscoveryTexas Government CodeAdministrative Procedure ActState AgenciesStatutory InterpretationProcedural IrregularitiesCourt of Appeals
References
5
Case No. 03-09-00280-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2010

Juneth Steubing v. City of Killeen, Texas

The Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, as relator, petitioned for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court's order that allowed three individual accountants to conduct discovery in their suits for judicial review of the Board's disciplinary decisions. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, conditionally granted the mandamus. The court held that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not provide for the application of general discovery procedures to the judicial review of administrative proceedings. It emphasized that discovery is conducted at the agency level, which is considered the trial level, and appellate review is largely limited to the record developed there. While a district court may receive evidence of procedural irregularities, this does not authorize a new round of discovery. Allowing such discovery would contradict the APA's limitations on the standard and scope of judicial review.

MandamusAdministrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewDiscoveryAgency ProceedingsProtective OrderProcedural IrregularitiesSovereign ImmunityStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of Appeals
References
8
Case No. 03-09-00280-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2010

in Re Texas State Board of Public Accountancy

The Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, as relator, sought a writ of mandamus to challenge a district court's order that allowed discovery in judicial review suits initiated by three individual accountants. The core legal question was whether general discovery procedures, typically used at the agency (trial) level, are permissible during judicial review of administrative decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court determined that while the APA allows for the introduction of evidence concerning procedural irregularities not reflected in the agency record, it does not authorize a second round of discovery at the district court level. Allowing such discovery would contradict the APA's limitations on the scope of judicial review and its waiver of governmental immunity. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ruling that the district court erred by denying the Board's motion for a protective order and permitting discovery.

Texas Court of AppealsMandamusAdministrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewDiscovery LimitationsAgency AdjudicationProtective OrderGovernmental ImmunityStatutory InterpretationAppellate Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas High-Speed Rail Authority

Southwest Airlines Company appealed the dismissal of its suit for judicial review of an order issued by the Texas High-Speed Rail Authority. The Authority had granted a franchise to Texas TGV Consortium, which Southwest sought to challenge. The district court in Travis County dismissed Southwest's petition, citing a lack of jurisdiction and standing because no statute provided for judicial review of the Authority's decisions, and Southwest lacked an inherent right to such review. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, clarifying that the Administrative Procedure Act's provisions for judicial review are procedural and do not create jurisdiction or waive governmental immunity. Furthermore, Southwest failed to demonstrate a vested property right that would entitle it to judicial review apart from statutory authorization.

Judicial ReviewAdministrative LawGovernmental ImmunityJurisdictionStandingHigh-Speed RailFranchise LawAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessProperty Rights
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benavidez v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
Case No. M2022-00740-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2025

Thomas Patterson v. Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security

Appellant Thomas Patterson challenged an administrative law judge's default order concerning the civil asset forfeiture of his vehicle, asserting that administrative officials lacked authority due to not swearing a judicial oath and that the default was improperly issued. The Commissioner’s Designee and the Chancery Court both affirmed the original default and denied Patterson’s request to set it aside. On appeal, the Court of Appeals considered whether the administrative officials required a judicial oath of office and if the default procedures were correctly applied. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that no judicial oath was statutorily or constitutionally mandated for the administrative judge or the Commissioner’s Designee, and that the default and the refusal to set it aside were procedurally sound. Consequently, all claims against Bradley County, including attorney's fees, were also dismissed as the default against Patterson was upheld.

Civil Asset ForfeitureAdministrative Law JudgeOath of OfficeDue ProcessDefault JudgmentAppellate ReviewTennessee Court of AppealsChancery CourtAdministrative Procedures ActRule 60.02
References
30
Case No. 3-92-151-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1993

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas High-Speed Rail Authority and Texas TGV Consortium

Appellant Southwest Airlines Co. appealed the dismissal of its suit for judicial review against the Texas High-Speed Rail Authority and Texas TGV Consortium. The district court dismissed the case, citing a lack of jurisdiction and Southwest's lack of standing to challenge the Authority's decision to award a high-speed rail franchise to Texas TGV. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that Section 19 of the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act (APTRA) is a procedural provision and does not independently create a right to judicial review. Furthermore, Southwest failed to demonstrate a vested property right that would entitle it to judicial review apart from statutory authority, as its CAB certificate was insufficient and its claim against "illegal competition" was not based on a permit or regulation from the Authority. The court also found no harm in the trial court's failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Judicial ReviewJurisdictionStandingAdministrative LawHigh-Speed RailFranchiseProperty RightsDue ProcessTexasCourt of Appeals
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 5,021 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