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. 03-98-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 1999

Concho Residential Service, Inc. v. MHMR Services for the Concho Valley A/K/A Concho Valley Center for Human Advancement, in Its Capacity as an Unincorporated Association, Its Capacity as a Mental Retardation Authority, and as a Purported Community MHMR Center

Concho Residential Services, Inc. (CRS) sued MHMR Services for the Concho Valley and 22 others for damages and injunctive relief, alleging statutory and common-law causes of action. The trial court rendered summary judgment, which CRS appealed. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment in part, finding that community centers are governmental entities entitled to sovereign immunity, thus dismissing antitrust, RICO, DTPA, and common-law tort claims. It also dismissed CRS's claim for injunctive relief due to lack of standing and claims under the Persons with Mental Retardation Act. The summary judgment for Hale County was also affirmed.

Antitrust ImmunityState Action ExemptionSovereign ImmunityMental Health ServicesMental Retardation ServicesCommunity CentersGovernmental EntitiesSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStanding
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stinson v. Tennessee Department of Mental Health & Mental Retardation

Plaintiff Velda Joyce Stinson, a highly qualified health professional, sued the Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute (MTMHI), the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (TDMHMR), and two individual officials for sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Stinson alleged she was denied a suitable position, given an unapproved job title, subjected to discriminatory treatment, demoted, and eventually had her position abolished after inquiring about pay inequities based on sex and filing an EEOC complaint. The court found that Stinson was treated less favorably than male counterparts, experienced significant retaliation, and that the defendants' justifications for their actions were pretexts. The court granted Stinson relief, ordering her reinstatement to a properly classified Assistant Superintendent position, awarding $9,756.00 in lost wages with prejudgment interest, and mandating attorneys' fees.

Sex DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawTitle VIIDemotionLost WagesReinstatementDiscriminatory PracticesPay InequityWorkplace Harassment
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Central Counties Center for Mental Health & Mental Retardation Services v. Rodriguez

This case consolidates two interlocutory appeals from district court orders denying pleas to the jurisdiction by Central Counties Center for Mental Health & Mental Retardation Services (the "Center") and Austin State Hospital (the "Hospital"). Karen Rodriguez sued the Center for personal injuries, including sexual exploitation by an employee. Debbie Fiske and Raymond Rodriguez sued the Hospital for damages related to their son's suicide while a patient. The core legal question is whether the Texas Health and Safety Code clearly and unambiguously waives sovereign immunity for mental health facilities. The court concludes that Code section 321.003 clearly waives both immunity from liability and immunity from suit for mental health facilities, including the Center and the Hospital. Therefore, the court affirms the district courts' orders denying the appellants' pleas to the jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityWaiver of ImmunityMental Health FacilitiesHealth and Safety CodePatient's Bill of RightsInterlocutory AppealPlea to JurisdictionStatutory ConstructionGovernmental ImmunityPersonal Injury
References
19
Case No. 03-00-00369-CV, 03-00-00640-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2001

Central Counties Center for Mental Health & Mental Retardation Services v. Karen Rodriguez

This case consolidates two interlocutory appeals concerning sovereign immunity waivers for mental health facilities. Central Counties Center for Mental Health & Mental Retardation Services and Austin State Hospital appealed the denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. Karen Rodriguez sued the Center for personal injuries and sexual exploitation by an employee. Debbie Fiske and Raymond Rodriguez sued the Hospital for damages and on behalf of their son, Christopher Roy Rodriguez, who committed suicide while a patient. The appeals court reviewed the issue de novo, determining whether the Texas Health and Safety Code clearly and unambiguously waives sovereign immunity. The court concluded that sections 321.003(a) and (b) of the Code explicitly waive both immunity from liability and immunity from suit for mental health facilities that violate patient rights. The court affirmed the district courts' orders denying the pleas to the jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityWaiver of ImmunityMental Health FacilitiesPatient's Bill of RightsTexas Health and Safety CodeStatutory ConstructionInterlocutory AppealPlea to JurisdictionPersonal InjurySexual Exploitation
References
19
Case No. 04-99-00603-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2001

Texas Department of Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. Rodriguez

Diana Rodriguez, a case worker at Laredo State Center (LSC), reported potential civil rights violations in Starr County regarding civil commitment procedures. Following her report, Rodriguez experienced several alleged adverse personnel actions: a "Thurston letter" (disciplinary notice), a "below standards" performance evaluation, and a transfer from the Crisis Intervention Unit (CIU) to a rehabilitation program. She filed a whistle-blower lawsuit against the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (MHMR), alleging these actions were retaliatory. The jury found in her favor, but MHMR appealed. The Court of Appeals reviewed the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence, particularly regarding the causal link between Rodriguez's report and the adverse actions. The majority found insufficient evidence of causation, concluding that the actions would not have occurred regardless of her report, and thus reversed the judgment and rendered judgment in MHMR's favor. A dissenting opinion argued that sufficient circumstantial evidence existed to support the jury's finding of causation.

WhistleblowerRetaliationAdverse Personnel ActionCausationLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyTexas Government CodeMental AnguishPublic EmployeeDue Process
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Permian Basin Community Centers for Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. Johns

Bob Johns sued Permian Basin Community Centers for Mental Health and Mental Retardation (PBCC) under the Texas Whistleblower Act, claiming wrongful termination after reporting alleged client abuse. Johns, a community living instructor, was suspended and later not rehired after reporting bruises on a resident. PBCC argued Johns was not their employee and failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The jury found in favor of Johns, but on appeal, PBCC contended that Johns failed to meet the jurisdictional prerequisite of exhausting administrative grievance procedures. The appellate court agreed, finding that Johns had not conclusively proven compliance with PBCC's internal grievance procedures, which were a mandatory prerequisite for filing suit under the Act. Consequently, the judgment for Johns was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court with orders to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Whistleblower ActPublic EmployeeAdministrative RemediesJurisdictional PrerequisiteRetaliation ClaimWrongful TerminationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorGrievance ProcedureAbuse Reporting
References
12
Case No. 3-90-002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 1991

Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation v. Opal Petty, by Herself and Through Her Next Friends, and Linda Kaufman and Herbert Clinton Denson, as Next Friends of Opal Petty

Opal Petty, through her next friends, sued the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation for personal injuries caused by employee negligence, recovering a $250,000 judgment. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals, Third District of Texas, addressed whether medical records and plans constituted 'tangible personal property' under the Texas Tort Claims Act, if the Department had actual notice of the injury, and the constitutionality of the statutory damages cap and pre-judgment interest. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the items were tangible property, actual notice was met, and the damage limit was constitutional. Ms. Petty's cross-points regarding additional damages and pre-judgment interest were overruled.

Governmental immunityTexas Tort Claims ActPersonal injuryNegligenceMental health careMental retardationTangible propertyActual noticeFalse imprisonmentDamages limitation
References
45
Case No. 08-19-00144-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2020

Permiacare, Ramora Thomas in Her Capacity as Executive Director of Permiacare and Todd Luzadder, in His Official as Director of Mental Health Services of Permiacare v. L. R. H.

This case concerns L.R.H.'s lawsuit against PermiaCare and its officials for alleged violations of statutory duties, failure to provide billed Medicaid services, and discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's denial of PermiaCare's plea to the jurisdiction. Specifically, it found that several ultra vires claims for prospective injunctive relief required re-pleading due to insufficient factual allegations, dismissed the Medicaid billing claim, and upheld the federal discrimination claims. The case has been remanded for further proceedings.

Mental HealthDisability RightsOfficial CapacitySovereign ImmunityJudicial ReviewUltra ViresAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActMedicaid FraudPleading Standards
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Dean

The defendant appealed his conviction for rape in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a mentally incompetent person, stemming from sexual intercourse with a mentally impaired victim. Both the defendant and the victim had significant mental impairments, with the defendant functioning at a slightly higher level. The primary issue on appeal was whether the prosecution met its high burden of proving the victim's lack of mental capacity to consent. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, including the long-standing relationship between the defendant and victim, their families' awareness, and evidence of mutual affection. Ultimately, the court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim lacked the mental capacity to consent under the specific circumstances. Consequently, the judgment of conviction was reversed, and the indictment dismissed.

Criminal LawSexual OffensesRape Second DegreeEndangering WelfareMentally Incompetent PersonCapacity to ConsentAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceParens PatriaeSexual Assault
References
11
Case No. 03-13-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage // Cross-Appellant,Texas Medical Association v. Texas Medical Association// Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage

The amicus brief, submitted by The Association of Marital and Family Therapy Regulatory Boards (AMFTRB), urges the Third Court of Appeals to grant en banc reconsideration and reverse a panel's decision that found 22 TEX. ADMIN CODE §801.42(13) invalid. The brief argues that Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists (LMFTs) are fully qualified, trained, and tested to perform diagnostic assessments within their therapeutic role. It asserts that diagnosis alone, in the context of marriage and family therapy, does not constitute the practice of medicine under the Texas Medical Practice Act, and preventing LMFTs from performing these assessments would effectively prohibit their professional practice and create a shortage of mental health professionals in Texas. The AMFTRB also highlights that the legislature did not intend for LMFTs to be supervised by physicians and that the structure of the Occupations Code supports marriage and family therapy as a stand-alone profession. Additionally, the brief questions the qualification of the Texas Medical Association's expert witness due to prior ethical lapses.

Marriage and Family TherapyDiagnostic AssessmentMedical Practice ActOccupations CodeRegulatory BoardsLicensureScope of PracticeMental Health ServicesTexasAccreditation
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 2,039 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