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. 03-00-00369-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. 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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington Heights-West Harlem-Inwood Mental Health Council, Inc. v. District 1199, National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees, RWDSU

This case involves a dispute between District 1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees, and Washington Heights-West Harlem-Inwood Mental Health Council, Inc. The union sought to enforce an arbitration award requiring the Council to rehire and provide back pay to an employee, Edward Lane. The Council cross-moved to vacate the award, arguing that no valid collective bargaining agreement with an arbitration clause existed between the parties. Although the parties had acted under the terms of a proposed agreement for a period, including processing some grievances and wage increases, no formal, signed contract had ever been executed. Citing recent appellate court decisions emphasizing contract formalism over implied intent, the District Court granted the Council's motion to vacate the arbitration award and denied the union's motion to enforce it, concluding that without a signed agreement, there was no contractual duty to arbitrate.

Arbitration AwardSummary JudgmentContract FormationCollective BargainingLabor DisputeContract FormalismVacation of AwardEnforcement of AwardMeeting of the MindsFederal Court
References
23
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2012

Williams v. Woodhull Medical & Mental Health Center

Valerie E. Williams filed an action against Woodhull Medical and Mental Health Center and other defendants, alleging discrimination and retaliation under federal and state laws, including Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986. Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom issued a Report and Recommendation, advising to grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiff Williams filed objections to the R&R, particularly contesting the recommendation on her Title VII retaliation claim. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, upon de novo review of the contested portions and clear error review of the uncontested, adopted the R&R in its entirety. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding Williams's claims, specifically noting a lack of causal connection for retaliation and insufficient evidence for a hostile work environment or due process violations.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VII RetaliationSummary JudgmentProcedural Due ProcessHostile Work EnvironmentMedical Negligence AllegationsPublic Health LawHospital EmploymentMagistrate Judge ReviewFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 56
References
80
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hale v. New York State Department of Mental Health

Curtis Hale, Jr. initiated an action under Title VII, alleging racial discrimination after his termination as a Mental Hygiene Therapy Aide at the Bronx Children’s Psychiatric Center. He claimed the Civil Service Employee Association failed to provide adequate representation and the New York State Department of Mental Health breached contractual obligations. The court, treating the State's motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment, found Hale's Title VII claims time-barred. His EEOC complaint was filed beyond the 180 or 300-day statutory limitations period, which commenced from the notice of termination (December 8, 1978), not the actual discharge date. Additionally, the court determined it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Hale’s state law breach of contract claim against the State, citing an absence of diversity and no federal question under the Labor Management Relations Act. Consequently, the court granted the State’s motion, dismissing the complaint against the New York State Department of Mental Health.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIIEmployment TerminationStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractSubject Matter JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionEleventh AmendmentCivil Service
References
10
Case No. 15-24-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2024

Cecile Erwin Young, in Her Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc.; And Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc. v. Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction and the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction issued by the 353rd Judicial District of Travis County. The appellants, including Cecile Erwin Young (Executive Commissioner of HHSC), Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc., and Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc., are challenging the lower court's decision. The appellees (Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company) had sought to enjoin the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) from proceeding with STAR & CHIP and STAR Kids managed care procurements. The core legal arguments revolve around whether HHSC's procurement processes violated Texas law, thereby rendering the intended contract awards unlawful ultra vires acts, and whether the appellees' claims are barred by sovereign immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The appellants contend that the district court abused its discretion by granting the injunction and denying the plea.

Appellate CourtTemporary InjunctionPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsProcurement DisputeManaged Care ContractsMedicaidCHIPTexas Health and Human Services Commission
References
95
Showing 1-10 of 13,996 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