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 Copeland

Michael Copeland sought a writ of mandamus to compel the district judge to vacate an order forcing arbitration with his employer, Stanley Transportation, Inc., following a work-related injury. Copeland contested the validity and public policy compliance of the arbitration agreement, specifically challenging the trial court's finding that Stanley's employee benefit plan offered benefits comparable to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Citing Lawrence v. CDB Servs., Inc., the court clarified that comparing benefit plan equivalence is not a relevant issue for compelling arbitration. Consequently, as the sole stated basis for the mandamus petition was deemed irrelevant, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus was denied.

Arbitration AgreementMandamusEmployment LawContract ValidityPublic PolicyFederal Arbitration ActTexas LawPreemptionEmployee Benefit PlanAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Industrial Accident Board of the State of Texas v. Spears

The Industrial Accident Board (IAB) sought a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Carolyn H. Spears to disqualify Bruce Miller and the law firm Tinsman & Houser from representing Jesse Casias in a tort action. The IAB argued a conflict of interest because Margaret Maisel, a member of the firm, previously served as IAB chairman and legal advisor. The court found that Maisel's prior role and knowledge of the notice issue in Casias's case created a substantial relationship and a conclusive presumption of shared confidences within her firm. Additionally, Maisel was deemed a potential material witness and a former government attorney without consent to represent the IAB's adversary. The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by not ordering the disqualification, rejecting arguments of waiver and undue delay, and thus conditionally granted the writ of mandamus.

Conflict of InterestAttorney DisqualificationWrit of MandamusEthical StandardsFormer ClientMaterial WitnessGovernment AttorneyTexas Tort Claims ActActual NoticeProfessional Responsibility
References
8
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Enterprise Products Co. v. Sanderson

The Ninth Court of Appeals addressed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Enterprise Products Company against Judge Gary Sanderson, who had ordered the production of documents in a lawsuit filed by David and Wanda Ling. The Lings' employee, David Ling, suffered a severe injury at an Enterprise facility. Enterprise claimed the documents were privileged work product or prepared in anticipation of litigation. The Court affirmed Judge Sanderson's ruling that documents prepared before the lawsuit was filed (June 12, 1987) were discoverable, citing a lack of 'outward manifestation' of impending litigation. The Court denied the Writ of Mandamus but modified some paragraphs of the trial judge's order, particularly regarding future safety procedures and the sharing of production costs.

Discovery DisputeWrit of MandamusWork Product PrivilegeAnticipation of LitigationTexas Rules of Civil ProcedurePost-Accident InvestigationOutward Manifestation TestJudicial DiscretionAdmissibility of EvidenceScope of Discovery
References
13
Case No. 13-02-529-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2003

in Re: C & H News Co.

The relator, Nueces News Agency, Inc., d/b/a ETD KroMar, Southern Division (also known as C & H News Co.), petitioned the Thirteenth District Court of Texas for a writ of mandamus. The relator sought to compel arbitration in a wrongful death suit brought by Odilia Gallegos and others (real parties in interest) following the death of an employee, Jesus Gallegos, Sr. The respondent, Judge Rolando Olvera of the 357th District Court of Cameron County, had denied the relator's motion to compel arbitration. This appellate court previously denied mandamus relief due to an incomplete record. Upon a second review with a complete record, the Court found that the arbitration agreement, by incorporating an employee handbook, allowed the relator to unilaterally amend the types of claims subject to arbitration. Consequently, the Court ruled that the arbitration agreement was an illusory promise, lacking mutuality of obligation, and therefore unenforceable. The petition for writ of mandamus was denied, affirming the trial court's decision.

MandamusArbitration AgreementIllusory PromiseEmployment ContractMutuality of ObligationUnilateral AmendmentFederal Arbitration ActAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionContract Interpretation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Polymerica, LLC

Polymerica, LLC d/b/a Global Enterprises, Inc. (Global) sought a writ of mandamus against Judge M. Sue Kurita, requesting the trial court to compel arbitration in a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by Angelica Soltero. Soltero, a former human resources manager, sued Global after her employment was terminated, alleging wrongful termination due to national origin and retaliation, citing the Texas Labor Code. Global contended that Soltero was bound by arbitration agreements from her joint employment with Global and Dickason Staff Leasing Company. The trial court denied Global’s motion to compel arbitration. The appellate court, finding an abuse of discretion, conditionally granted the writ of mandamus in part, instructing the trial court to compel arbitration for claims arising before the termination of the joint employment agreement, as Soltero had received substantial benefits from the arbitration agreements during that period. The court did not compel arbitration for claims arising after the joint agreement ended.

ArbitrationWrit of MandamusEmployment LawEquitable EstoppelDirect Benefits EstoppelWrongful TerminationRetaliationSexual Harassment ClaimJoint EmploymentFederal Arbitration Act
References
14
Case No. 01-25-00057-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2025

In Re Gulf Coast Flooring & Services, Inc. v. the State of Texas

Relator, Gulf Coast Flooring & Services, LLC, sought a writ of mandamus to challenge a trial court's order that denied its plea to the jurisdiction and plea in abatement. The relator argued that the real parties in interest, including the Estate of Alexander Uzcategui, failed to exhaust administrative remedies with the Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers’ Compensation, claiming the division has exclusive jurisdiction over employee versus independent contractor status. A recent Texas Supreme Court decision, Univ. of Tex. Rio Grande Valley v. Oteka, was referenced by both sides, with differing interpretations regarding its impact on the mandamus relief. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus. However, this denial was without prejudice, allowing the relator to request the probate court to reconsider its ruling in light of the Oteka decision.

Writ of MandamusPlea to the JurisdictionPlea in AbatementAdministrative RemediesWorkers' CompensationExclusive JurisdictionIndependent Contractor StatusEmployee StatusProbate CourtCourt of Appeals
References
2
Case No. 13-22-00376-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

in Re Berry Contracting, LP D/B/A Bay Ltd. and Juan Hernandez

Relators Berry Contracting, LP d/b/a Bay Ltd. and Juan Hernandez filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to set aside a July 28, 2022 order which concluded they failed to prove the affirmative defense of exclusive remedy in a workers’ compensation case. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals in Texas stayed the trial court proceedings and requested a response from real parties in interest Gernal Mann and Jennifer Mann. Subsequently, the parties entered into settlement discussions and filed a joint motion to dismiss the mandamus proceeding and to lift the stay, stating that the underlying matters had been resolved. The Court granted the joint motion, reinstated the case, lifted the previously imposed stay, and dismissed the petition for writ of mandamus as moot.

Writ of MandamusWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedySettlementMootnessDismissalCourt of AppealsTexasJoint MotionStay Lifted
References
3
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

Union City Body Co., Inc. v. Ramirez

Relator Union City Body Co. sought a writ of mandamus against Judge Mario Ramirez after the trial court severed Union City's cross-claims from the underlying personal injury lawsuit initiated by Ranee and Linda Bighorse. The underlying case stemmed from a 1990 automobile accident where Ranee Bighorse, driving a Union City van, suffered paralyzing injuries. The trial court sustained special exceptions to Union City's cross-actions and severed them, allowing the main case against Movac and Union City to proceed. Union City's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to this mandamus petition. The appellate court found that Union City had waived its objections to the severance by failing to make a timely and specific objection during the initial hearing, only raising the issue the following day after the severed parties had been excused. Consequently, the appellate court concluded there was no clear abuse of discretion by the trial court, and denied the writ.

MandamusWrit of MandamusSeveranceAbuse of DiscretionWaiverPretrial MotionsCross-claimsThird-party ActionsTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureAppellate Review
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 761 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