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

Durish v. Newberry

This is an appeal from a jury verdict in a workers’ compensation case regarding a venue dispute. The appellant argued that the trial court erred in denying their motion to transfer venue from Harris County to Travis County, citing a mandatory venue provision in the Insurance Code for receivership proceedings. The appellee had filed suit in Harris County to appeal an Industrial Accident Board award, asserting venue in Harris County was mandatory under the workers' compensation statute. The appellate court concluded that the Insurance Code's exclusive venue provision for insurance companies in receivership, which was amended subsequent to the workers’ compensation venue provision, superseded the latter. The judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded with orders to transfer the case to the 261st District Court of Travis County.

Workers' CompensationVenue DisputeInsurance ReceivershipExclusive VenueMandatory VenueStatutory InterpretationTexas Insurance CodeAppellate ProcedureReversed and RemandedDistrict Court Jurisdiction
References
4
Case No. 13-11-00260-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2011

in Re Fluor Enterprises, Inc. F/K/A Fluor Daniel, Inc.

Fluor Enterprises, Inc. seeks to compel the trial court to transfer the venue of a case from Hidalgo County, Texas, to Dallas County, Texas. The real party in interest, John Joseph Whelan, III, was injured on the job while employed by Fluor and was subsequently terminated. Whelan initially filed suit alleging libel, slander, defamation, and retaliatory discharge, asserting venue was proper in Hidalgo County. Fluor moved to transfer venue, arguing that Dallas County was the mandatory venue for defamation claims and its principal place of business. The trial court denied Fluor's motion to transfer venue. The Court of Appeals, Thirteenth District of Texas, conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus, concluding that the trial court erred in refusing to apply the mandatory venue provision applicable to defamation claims, despite Whelan's attempts to amend pleadings on the day of the hearing.

Venue TransferWrit of MandamusDefamation ClaimsRetaliatory DischargeMandatory Venue ProvisionTrial Court ErrorHidalgo County, TexasDallas County, TexasPleadings AmendmentWorkers' Compensation Claim
References
18
Case No. 03-11-00310-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2012

Refugio Robles Rayas v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company and Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania

Refugio Robles Rayas, a citizen of Mexico injured while working in Texas on an H-2B visa, appealed the transfer of venue in his workers' compensation claim. He initially filed suit in Maverick County against Texas Mutual Insurance Company and Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICSOP). The trial court granted the motions to transfer venue and moved the suit to Travis County, where it subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of Texas Mutual and ICSOP. Rayas argued that Maverick County was the mandatory and proper venue because of its proximity to his residence in Mexico, as per the Texas Labor Code. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the labor code's mandatory venue provision for the employee's county of residence did not apply to a non-resident of Texas. Consequently, the general venue rule, making Travis County a proper venue due to Texas Mutual's principal place of business, was correctly applied. The court also rejected Rayas's arguments regarding violations of the 'open courts' provision and due process rights.

Workers' CompensationVenue TransferJudicial ReviewSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeTexas Civil Practice & Remedies CodeOpen Courts ProvisionDue ProcessNon-resident Claimant
References
24
Case No. 13-25-00001-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2025

In Re Baseline Energy Services, LP and Baseline Services, LLC v. the State of Texas

Billy Tom Martin initiated an employment dispute in Hidalgo County against Baseline Energy Services, LP and Baseline Services LLC, alleging various forms of discrimination and workers' compensation retaliation. The defendant entities, referred to as relators, filed a motion to transfer venue to Tarrant County, asserting mandatory venue provisions for libel and injunctive relief, and challenging Martin's residency claim. The trial court denied the relators' motion without their counsel present, leading to this petition for writ of mandamus. The appellate court determined that Martin failed to provide prima facie proof for venue in Hidalgo County and that mandatory venue for the defamation claim resided in Tarrant County, where relators were domiciled. Consequently, the Court of Appeals conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate its order and transfer the case to Tarrant County.

MandamusVenue TransferEmployment LawDiscriminationRetaliationLibelInjunctive ReliefTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeHidalgo CountyTarrant County
References
47
Case No. 13-12-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2012

in Re City of Corpus Christi, Texas

The City of Corpus Christi, Texas, filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging a trial court's order denying its motion to transfer venue from San Patricio County to Nueces County. Corpus Christi argued that venue was mandatory in Nueces County under the provision governing injunction suits, as the City of Ingleside had sought injunctive relief against Corpus Christi regarding property taxation. The court, however, determined that the primary purpose of Ingleside's suit was for a declaratory judgment to establish geographical boundaries, with the injunctive relief being merely ancillary. Consequently, the mandatory venue provision for injunctions was deemed inapplicable. The court denied the petition for writ of mandamus.

Venue disputeMandamus reliefDeclaratory judgmentInjunctive reliefInterlocutory appealTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeJudicial discretionAppellate jurisdictionMunicipal boundariesTaxation dispute
References
31
Case No. ADJ4019843
Regular
Oct 24, 2009

HENRYCE WOODARD vs. HIGHLANDER CHILDREN'S SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN

This case involves a dispute over the proper venue for a workers' compensation claim. The applicant initially filed in Los Angeles, where her attorney is located, but the defendant objected, arguing venue should be in Riverside where the injury occurred and the applicant resided. The Appeals Board granted the applicant's removal petition, rescinded the prior order changing venue to San Diego, and instead ordered venue transferred to Riverside.

RemovalVenueWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5501.5Labor Code § 5501.6WCAB Rule 10410Industrial InjuryApplication for Adjudication of ClaimChange of VenueRiverside County
References
1
Case No. Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 Consolidated
Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.

This case involves appeals concerning the consolidation and venue of two actions arising from a fatal car accident in Broome County. Plaintiff Paul Schiffman, executor of the deceased Helds' estates, and plaintiff Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), the Helds' insurer, initiated separate actions against defendant Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company in Monroe County. Uniroyal moved to consolidate the actions and change venue to Broome County, citing witness inconvenience. The Supreme Court denied Uniroyal's motion regarding venue. The appellate court found special circumstances warranted deviation from the general venue rules, reversing the lower court's decision and setting venue for the consolidated actions in Broome County. An appeal from a motion for reconsideration was dismissed.

Venue ChangeConsolidationProducts LiabilityNegligenceWrongful DeathFatal AccidentWitness InconvenienceAppellate ReviewDiscretionary AbuseBroome County Venue
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vallecillo v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant's counsel, Gerarda M. Rella, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that imposed two $500 penalties. The initial penalty stemmed from a venue request filed without reasonable grounds, seeking a hearing in White Plains despite the claimant residing in Brooklyn and working in Queens, for attorney convenience. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's denial of the venue change and the initial penalty. An additional $500 penalty was assessed for a frivolous appeal to the Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Rella's venue request lacked justification and that the Board appropriately exercised its discretion in imposing both penalties, especially given Rella's prior awareness of venue rules in similar matters.

Workers' Compensation LawAttorney MisconductFrivolous AppealVenue RequestMonetary PenaltyAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionProcedural MotionNew York LawAdministrative Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas General Indemnity Co. v. Eisler

Justice Hedges dissents, agreeing with the majority on the duration of disability for impairment income benefits but arguing that the Galveston County district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The dissent contends that challenges to administrative rules, such as those promulgated by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (TWCC), are mandated by statute to be heard exclusively in a Travis County district court. Hedges cites various Texas Government and Labor Codes to support the view that this venue provision is jurisdictional and mandatory, not merely permissive. The dissent highlights that Texas General Indemnity (TGI) itself previously argued for mandatory Travis County venue in a separate suit. Given that TGI’s Galveston County petition against Eisler functionally challenges the validity of TWCC rules, Justice Hedges concludes that the Galveston County court had no jurisdiction. Therefore, Hedges would reverse the trial court’s summary judgments and dismiss the causes of action without prejudice for want of jurisdiction.

JurisdictionTravis CountyGalveston CountyAdministrative Rule ChallengeStatutory ConflictWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMandatory VenueSubject Matter JurisdictionDissenting OpinionDeclaratory Judgment Action
References
13
Case No. ADJ7204282
Regular
Oct 21, 2010

ROBERT TARA (Deceased) vs. HEAVENLY VALLEY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a dispute over venue in a workers' compensation claim for a deceased employee. The defendant employer timely objected to the San Diego venue designated by the applicant's attorney, who practices there. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, reversing the prior order. The Board found the venue objection was timely under Labor Code section 5501.5(c) and therefore mandatory venue change to the Sacramento district office.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalOrder Denying Change of VenuePresiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeLabor Code Section 5501.5(c)Venue ObjectionApplication for Adjudication of ClaimPrincipal Place of BusinessIndustrial InjuryDeceased Employee
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,241 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