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

Texas Department of Insurance v. Reconveyance Services, Inc.

Reconveyance Services, Inc. (Reconveyance) sought declaratory relief against the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. Reconveyance aimed to offer post-closing mortgage release services in Texas for a separate fee via title insurance companies, but TDI considered these services covered by existing premiums and threatened enforcement against agents charging extra. TDI challenged the district court's subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting separation-of-powers principles and lack of a justiciable controversy. The district court denied TDI's plea, and the appellate court affirmed, concluding that Reconveyance had presented a justiciable controversy regarding TDI's statutory authority.

Declaratory ReliefStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAgency AuthoritySubject Matter JurisdictionJusticiabilityRipenessStandingTexas Title Insurance ActPost-closing Mortgage Release Services
References
42
Case No. 01-19-00025-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2020

Dee Hobbs, Williamson County Attorney v. Dan A. Gattis, Williamson County Judge Terry Cook, Cynthia Long, Valerie Covey, and Larry Madsen, County Commissioners

Dee Hobbs, in his official capacity as the Williamson County Attorney, appealed the trial court's grant of a plea to the jurisdiction. Hobbs had sued the Williamson County Judge and Commissioners, challenging policies that restricted the salary he could offer new or promoted employees, arguing these policies exceeded the Commissioners Court's authority. The trial court dismissed the case, finding no justiciable controversy and that Hobbs lacked standing. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, concluding that Hobbs's pleading did not demonstrate a live controversy or sufficient standing, and did not invoke the district court's supervisory jurisdiction over the Commissioners Court.

Plea to the JurisdictionStandingJusticiable ControversyDeclaratory JudgmentSupervisory JurisdictionWilliamson CountyCommissioners CourtCounty AttorneyEmployee SalariesBudgetary Discretion
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Office of Risk Mangement v. Linda Rodriguez

Linda Rodriguez, a former Texas Department of Human Services employee, sustained a compensable injury in 1998, reaching maximum medical improvement (MMI) in 2000. Her worker's compensation claim centered on a disputed impairment rating (IR), with designated doctor Howard Douglas assigning 5 percent and treating physician Terren Klein assigning 23 percent. Rodriguez appealed the Division's 5 percent IR determination to the district court. The State Office of Risk Management (SORM) filed a second plea to the jurisdiction, arguing no justiciable issue existed as only one valid IR was presented. The trial court overruled SORM's plea, and this appellate court affirmed that decision, finding a justiciable controversy regarding the validity of Dr. Klein's 23 percent IR.

Workers' CompensationImpairment RatingMaximum Medical ImprovementJurisdictionDe Novo ReviewTexas Labor CodeMedical EvidenceDesignated DoctorTreating PhysicianAdministrative Law
References
16
Case No. 03-06-00313-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2007

Texas Department of Insurance v. Reconveyance Services, Inc.

The Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) appealed a district court's denial of its plea to jurisdiction in a case brought by Reconveyance Services, Inc. (Reconveyance). Reconveyance sought declaratory relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA), alleging TDI acted without statutory authority by prohibiting title insurers and agents from charging a separate fee for its post-closing mortgage release services. TDI contended the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, citing separation-of-powers and non-justiciability principles. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Reconveyance's claim presented a justiciable controversy regarding the scope of TDI's statutory authority. The court concluded that statutory construction is an inherently judicial function and TDI had not been granted exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute, thus the district court properly exercised jurisdiction.

Judicial ReviewAgency AuthorityStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative LawJurisdictionTexas Title Insurance ActRegulatory OversightJusticiabilitySeparation of Powers
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Rita N.

This opinion addresses multiple pending proceedings where petitioners (aunts, uncles, grandparents, natural parents) seek court recognition of existing living arrangements for children for various administrative purposes like school enrollment, social security benefits, or medical authorization. The court observes that these petitioners primarily seek a "piece of paper" (letter of guardianship) to satisfy bureaucratic requirements, even though the children already reside with them. Judge Fogarty explains that the Family Court lacks original jurisdiction over guardianship proceedings, as the Legislature has limited its authority to cases where a child is already under the court's jurisdiction on some other basis. The opinion clarifies that custody proceedings are being used as a "subterfuge" to circumvent this jurisdictional limitation, but such proceedings require an "adversary context" and "justiciable dispute." The court concludes that these matters properly belong in the Surrogate's Court, which has concurrent jurisdiction over infant guardianship and simplified procedures. Therefore, the petitions are dismissed, and the parties are referred to the Surrogate’s Court, as there is no justiciable dispute or custodial controversy before the Family Court.

GuardianshipFamily Court JurisdictionSurrogate's CourtCustody ProceedingsJudicial PowerParens PatriaeInfant WardsJurisdictional LimitationsBest Interest of ChildLetters of Guardianship
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Catania v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

This case involves a submitted controversy under sections 546 to 548 of the Civil Practice Act, concerning whether a liability policy issued to John Schiro extends coverage to the plaintiff for injuries sustained by Schiro's wife. Schiro's wife alleged negligence against her spouse in the operation of his vehicle during his employment with the plaintiff. The court analyzed Insurance Law section 167 (subd. 3), which states that policies do not cover liability for spousal injuries unless expressly provided. Citing Morgan v. Greater New York Taxpayers Mut. Ins. Assn., the court treated the policy as if issued to the plaintiff alone, determining that Schiro's wife is not the plaintiff's spouse, thus making section 167 (subd. 3) inapplicable. The decision, supported by Manhattan Cas. Co. v. Cholakis, concluded that the insurer is liable. Therefore, judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff, requiring the defendant to defend the pending negligence action and pay any judgment up to the policy limits.

Liability PolicyInsurance CoverageSpousal LiabilityCivil Practice ActInsurance LawNegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentAutomobile AccidentEmployer LiabilityInterspousal Immunity
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leonard v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

The complaint was properly dismissed as it alleged no current justiciable controversy. The judgment and orders were unanimously affirmed, with costs awarded to the defendants-respondents.

Justiciable ControversyComplaint DismissalJudgment AffirmationCosts AwardedPanel DecisionUnanimous DecisionAppellate Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McDonald-Besheme v. Verizon Wireless, Inc.

Claimant, an operations specialist, was injured in a fall in March 2003 and subsequently filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The employer failed to file a notice of controversy within the 25-day statutory period after receiving the notice of indexing on August 1, 2003. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the employer's notice untimely, precluding the employer from contesting the employer-employee relationship or that the injury arose out of employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this determination, as the employer did not demonstrate good cause for the delay. The employer appealed, but the court affirmed the Board’s decision.

Late Notice of ControversyEmployer LiabilityTimeliness of FilingAppeal DecisionAdministrative ReviewStatutory ComplianceDiscretionary PowersAbsence of Good CausePreclusion of DefenseWorkplace Injury Claim
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2004

National American Insurance v. Breaux

NAICO sought a declaratory judgment against Kenneth Young, Cheryl Young, and Norman Breaux, asserting it had no duty to defend or indemnify Breaux under an insurance policy issued to Hart Construction, Inc. for an incident where Breaux, a Hart employee, used leased equipment for personal reasons. The court determined that Breaux's actions were not within the scope of his employment or related to Hart's business, and the 'mobile equipment' policy provision was inapplicable. Furthermore, the court found a justiciable controversy, allowing the Youngs to be proper parties. Consequently, NAICO's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the Youngs' motion was denied, concluding no duty to defend or indemnify existed.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyEmployee Insurance CoverageScope of EmploymentMobile Equipment ExclusionPersonal Use of Company PropertySummary JudgmentTexas Law
References
127
Case No. 03-03-00270-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2004

Robert O'Neal, D.C. v. Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners

Robert O’Neal, a licensed chiropractor, appealed the district court's dismissal of his declaratory judgment action against the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners. O'Neal sought a declaration that needle electromyography (needle EMG) is within the scope of chiropractic practice, a stance the Board already maintained. The Attorney General, however, had issued an opinion stating needle EMG was outside this scope. The district court granted the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, concluding no justiciable controversy existed between O'Neal and the Board. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no real dispute as O'Neal and the Board agree on the interpretation, thus lacking subject matter jurisdiction.

Chiropractic PracticeNeedle ElectromyographyScope of PracticeDeclaratory JudgmentJusticiable ControversyPlea to the JurisdictionAdministrative LawAttorney General OpinionTexas Court of AppealsMedical Diagnostic Techniques
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 236 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