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

In re Accident Fund Gen. Ins. Co.

Ricky Sayaz, an injured employee, sued his employer, Coil Tubing Solutions, LLC, for wrongful discharge and retaliation, and also sued his workers' compensation carrier, Accident Fund General Insurance Company, and its adjuster, Kriste Henderson, for aiding and abetting, tortious interference, and conspiracy, alleging misuse of the "bona fide offer of employment" process to justify his termination. Accident Fund and Henderson sought a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that the Division of Workers' Compensation held exclusive jurisdiction. The trial court denied this plea, leading to this original proceeding. The higher court determined that Sayaz's claims against Accident Fund and Henderson arise from the statutory claims-handling process and fall under the Division's exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the court conditionally granted mandamus relief to Accident Fund and Henderson, directing the trial court to dismiss claims against them for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, while denying mandamus relief to Coil Tubing Solutions, LLC.

Workers' CompensationExclusive JurisdictionMandamus ReliefBona Fide Offer of EmploymentRetaliatory DischargeTortious InterferenceConspiracyClaims HandlingAdministrative RemediesSubject-Matter Jurisdiction
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Home Insurance Co. v. Marsh

Relators seek mandamus relief to reverse a March 6, 1990 order by Respondent, Judge Herb Marsh, Jr., which disqualified their law firm, Scott, Hulse, Marshall, Feuille, Finger and Thurmond, from representing them in an underlying class action lawsuit. The underlying suit involves chiropractors suing insurance companies for alleged anti-chiropractic practices. The disqualification stemmed from the law firm's prior representation of two plaintiffs in the underlying suit, Dr. LaRock and Coronado Chiropractic Clinic, in earlier negligence/malpractice actions. The court found no abuse of discretion by Judge Marsh, affirming the disqualification based on a substantial relationship between the prior representation and the current litigation, which created a genuine threat of revealing confidential information. The writ of mandamus is denied.

MandamusAttorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestAttorney-Client PrivilegeClass ActionChiropractic MalpracticeInsurance LitigationAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionLegal Ethics
References
4
Case No. Cause No. 12-92-00401-CV; Cause No. 12-92-00400-CV; Cause No. 12-92-00386-CV
Regular Panel Decision

White v. Blake

The Relator, James Ronnie White, filed three original mandamus proceedings against Judge Blake concerning child custody and parental rights over his daughter, K_B_W_. The case originated from a 1983 Alabama divorce, with subsequent modifications and allegations of child abuse that Alabama courts found groundless. After the child's mother moved K_B_W_ to Texas, White challenged a Texas protective order, the denial of his habeas corpus application for possession of the child, and the refusal to dismiss a petition to terminate his parental rights. The appellate court denied mandamus relief for the protective order and the denial of habeas corpus (due to lack of record on emergency grounds) but conditionally granted relief regarding attorney's fees awarded in the habeas matter. Crucially, the court conditionally granted mandamus relief to dismiss the termination petition, holding that the Texas court abused its discretion by not adhering to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) and Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) requirements for deferring jurisdiction to Alabama, which continued to exercise jurisdiction.

MandamusChild CustodyParental Rights TerminationJurisdiction DisputeUCCJAPKPAInterstate CustodyHabeas CorpusProtective OrderAttorney Fees
References
19
Case No. 13-09-00443-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2010

in Re: Adan Volpe Properties, Ltd. and Maricela Volpe as General Partner

Adan Volpe Properties, Ltd. and Maricela Volpe (relators) filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging a trial court's order to transfer venue. The relators' original lawsuit in Hidalgo County alleged fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, defamation, libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, racketeering, and sought injunctive relief. The trial court granted motions by Donato Volpe Jr., Eustorgio Perez, and Luis Antonio Figueroa (real parties in interest) to transfer venue to Webb County, based on mandatory venue provisions for injunctions. The Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals reviewed whether the injunctive relief sought by relators was primary or ancillary to their claims for damages. The appellate court concluded that the injunctive relief was ancillary, thus section 65.023 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which mandates venue for primarily injunctive suits, did not apply. The petition for writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, ordering the trial court to withdraw its venue transfer order.

MandamusVenue TransferCivil ProcedureInjunctive ReliefAncillary ClaimsFraudBreach of Fiduciary DutyDefamationRacketeeringTexas Court of Appeals
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re State

The State of Texas filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, contending that the district court issued a void order assessing attorneys’ fees after a previous appellate mandate. The district court had awarded Anderson Courier Service $368,857 in attorneys' fees as supplemental relief under sections 37.009 and 37.011 of the Texas Declaratory Judgment Act. The State argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to make such an award post-mandate. This Court denied the petition for mandamus, holding that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the request for supplemental relief under section 37.011, even after the appeal was completed. The opinion clarified that issues regarding whether the award was "necessary or proper" would be addressed in a pending appeal, as they do not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction.

MandamusJurisdictionAttorneys' FeesDeclaratory Judgment ActSupplemental ReliefAppellate MandateVoid OrderCivil ProcedureTexas Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Ray

Johnny K. Thomas sought mandamus relief to overturn a trial court order that excluded all of his expert witnesses in his legal malpractice suit against Swanson. Thomas alleged Swanson committed legal malpractice, violating the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, negligence, gross negligence, and breached the implied duty of good faith in a worker's compensation case. The trial court excluded Thomas's experts because he allegedly failed to designate them by a February 17, 1993 deadline, despite Thomas's claim, supported by an affidavit, that the designation was mailed on February 3, 1993. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the witnesses, as Swanson failed to present any evidence to rebut the presumption that the mailed notice of expert designation was received. Consequently, the court conditionally granted mandamus relief, ordering the trial court to vacate its exclusion order.

Mandamus ReliefExpert Witness ExclusionLegal MalpracticeDeceptive Trade Practices ActPresumption of ReceiptAbuse of DiscretionTrial Court OrderDiscovery SanctionsTimely DesignationRules of Civil Procedure
References
3
Case No. 23-1039
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2025

In Re East Texas Medical Center Athens

An employee, Sharon Dunn, was injured while working for East Texas Medical Center Athens (ETMC Athens), a nonsubscribing employer to the Texas workers’ compensation program. Dunn sued ETMC Athens for negligence. ETMC Athens sought to designate an emergency medical technician (EMT) and his employer as responsible third parties, which the trial court initially granted but later struck upon Dunn's motion. The court of appeals denied ETMC Athens's request for mandamus relief. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by striking the designation. The Supreme Court concluded that the proportionate-responsibility statute applies to an employee’s negligence claim against a nonsubscribing employer, the Workers’ Compensation Act does not prohibit such designations, and sufficient evidence supported the third parties' responsibility. Mandamus relief was conditionally granted.

Workers' CompensationNegligence ClaimNonsubscribing EmployerProportionate ResponsibilityResponsible Third PartyMandamus ReliefTrial Court Abuse of DiscretionAppellate RemedyTexas LawWork-related Injury
References
29
Case No. 08-07-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2008

in Re: Randy J. Pollet, M. D.

In this original proceeding, Dr. Randy J. Pollet, M.D., sought mandamus relief, challenging the trial court's failure to rule on his motion to dismiss a medical malpractice claim filed by Mr. Rafael Martinez, pursuant to the Texas Medical Liability Act. The trial court took Dr. Pollet's motion "under advisement" and deferred a ruling until after a deposition, which Dr. Pollet argued forced him to expend unnecessary resources and frustrated legislative intent. The Eighth District Court of Appeals in El Paso, Texas, found that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to rule within a reasonable time. The court conditionally granted mandamus relief, instructing the trial court to rule on the motion to dismiss, without dictating the outcome. This decision underscores the importance of prompt judicial action to enforce statutory provisions intended to prevent prolonged litigation in certain medical liability cases.

MandamusMedical MalpracticeMotion to DismissExpert ReportAbuse of DiscretionTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTrial CourtAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationOriginal Proceeding
References
8
Case No. No. 07-96-0102-CV
Regular Panel Decision

in Re Crawford & Company, Crawford & Company Healthcare Management, Inc., Patsy Hogan, and Old Republic Insurance Company, Relators

Crawford & Company et al. petitioned for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the trial court to grant their plea to the jurisdiction and motions for summary judgment, thereby dismissing all claims by Edward Glenn Johnson and Natalie Johnson for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to exclusive workers' compensation jurisdiction. The court denied the petition, finding that Crawford failed to meet the burden for mandamus relief. Reasons included a five-month delay in filing the petition, which was initiated shortly before the trial date, suggesting an attempt to further hinder adjudication. Additionally, mandamus is generally unavailable for reviewing summary judgment denials, especially concerning issues unrelated to administrative remedies. The court also clarified that previous rulings like Texas Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ruttiger did not preclude all common law claims against workers' compensation insurers, particularly malicious prosecution, which Crawford itself admitted fell outside the workers' compensation scheme.

MandamusPlea to the JurisdictionSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionWorkers' CompensationAdministrative RemediesExhaustion of RemediesAbuse of DiscretionInadequate Legal RemedyLaches
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Braden v. Marquez

Sotera Pineira obtained a $20,000 judgment against her employer, Alliance Health Inc., for a work-related injury. Alliance subsequently sold its assets, prompting Pineira to pursue an alter ego theory against Frank Braden and Bill Ehrhardt, alleging they were Alliance's alter egos to satisfy the judgment. Ehrhardt filed a special appearance, and both Braden and Ehrhardt filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to add them to the lawsuit after the original judgment became final. The trial court denied both motions, prompting Braden and Ehrhardt (relators) to seek a writ of mandamus. The appellate court denied leave to file the petition for writ of mandamus, finding no clear abuse of discretion in the denial of the special appearance and no extraordinary circumstances warranting mandamus relief for the plea to the jurisdiction.

MandamusSpecial AppearancePlea to JurisdictionAlter EgoCorporate VeilPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionEnforcement of JudgmentAbuse of DiscretionAdequate Remedy by Appeal
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 1,731 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