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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The case involves a dispute over the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) board's authority to define 'employee' for pension eligibility. Petitioners, former City of Houston employees transferred to a third-party entity (CCSI), sought retirement benefits or cessation of pension contributions, arguing they were no longer City employees. The pension board, however, determined these employees remained 'members' due to the City's effective control over their new employer. The trial court and court of appeals dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing the statutory preclusion of judicial review for HMEPS decisions. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed, concluding that the pension board acted within its broad statutory authority and that the petitioners' ultra vires, equal protection, and due course of law claims were invalid as they lacked vested property rights in the pension benefits.

Pension LawStatutory InterpretationJudicial ReviewUltra ViresSovereign ImmunityEqual ProtectionDue Course of LawVested RightsMunicipal EmployeesOutsourcing
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The case involves an appeal by Kenneth Vick and members of Local Union Number 835, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, against an injunction prohibiting picketing of the Weakley County Municipal Electric System. The appeal challenged the constitutionality of the Municipal Electric Plant Law of 1935 as applied to Weakley County and the right of a municipal electric system to enter into collective bargaining agreements with a labor union. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding the constitutionality of the Act. It ruled that while a municipal electric system operates in a proprietary capacity, it remains a governmental agency and thus cannot lawfully enter into collective bargaining agreements with a labor union, making strikes and picketing for such purposes illegal.

Labor DisputeInjunctionPicketingCollective BargainingMunicipal CorporationGovernmental FunctionProprietary FunctionConstitutional LawCounty PowersPublic Employees
References
27
Case No. NO. 13-0515
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2015

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case concerns a dispute over the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) and whether its board members violated the enabling statute by requiring petitioners' continued participation in the City of Houston's defined-benefit pension plan. The City attempted to remove a division of employees from the pension system by forming quasi-governmental entities. The pension board, however, determined these employees remained under the City's control and payroll, thus falling under the "employee" definition for HMEPS membership. Petitioners, including individual employees and the City of Houston, asserted ultra vires and constitutional claims, arguing the board unlawfully redefined "employee" and denied vested rights. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the pension board acted within its broad statutory authority in construing the term "employee" and the petitioners' constitutional claims were facially invalid as they lacked vested property rights in pension benefits or contributions.

Pension SystemEmployee DefinitionUltra ViresJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityTexas ConstitutionEqual ProtectionDue Course of LawVested RightsMunicipal Employees
References
30
Case No. 2-07-128-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2008

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

The City of The Colony, Texas, entered into a tri-party contract in 1998 with the City of Frisco, Texas, and the North Texas Municipal Water District for the construction and operation of a regional wastewater system. The Colony later ceased payments and sued Frisco and the District for breach of contract, declaratory judgment that no contract was formed, and rescission. The trial court largely granted summary judgment to Frisco and the District, leaving only certain claims for trial. On appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding The Colony's claims and the District's appeal. However, for Frisco's appeal, the court reversed the jury's $0.00 damages award, rendering judgment that The Colony owed Frisco $642,863.98 for breach of contract.

Contract LawWastewater SystemMunicipal LawSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentRescissionUnjust EnrichmentPromissory EstoppelAppellate Review
References
112
Case No. 03-02-00462-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2003

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

In this interlocutory appeal, the Texas Municipal Power Agency challenged a Public Utility Commission (PUC) order concerning the allocation of electricity transmission costs to the City of Bryan. Municipal Power Agency filed both an APA appeal and a Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) claim, the latter of which was dismissed by the district court on grounds of sovereign immunity and duplication of remedies. The Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal, ruling that the UDJA waives sovereign immunity when interpreting an agency's general statutory authority, even if a parallel APA appeal addressing specific agency actions is ongoing. The court emphasized that the UDJA action sought a broader declaration of the Commission's fundamental authority, distinguishing it from merely challenging a particular agency order. Therefore, the case was remanded for further proceedings on the declaratory judgment claim.

Sovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment Act (UDJA)Administrative Procedure Act (APA)Subject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPublic Utility CommissionElectricity Transmission RatesStatutory InterpretationAgency AuthorityDuplicate Remedies
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Roy Commer, a pro se plaintiff, sued the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) alleging violations of federal labor laws, specifically LMRDA §§ 101(a)(2) and 501, LMRA § 301, and 29 U.S.C. § 158, seeking reinstatement as president of Local 375 and substantial damages. AFSCME moved to dismiss all claims and requested sanctions. The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the LMRDA § 501 claim against AFSCME was not cognizable under the statute and that the claim against John/Jane Does lacked jurisdiction. The LMRA § 301 claim was dismissed due to collateral estoppel and failure to allege a specific contract breach. The LMRDA § 101 claim was dismissed administratively due to a pending identical prior action. Lastly, the 29 U.S.C. § 158 claim was found to be preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. The court, however, denied AFSCME's motion for sanctions against Commer, citing his pro se status while issuing a warning against future re-litigation of already dismissed claims.

Federal Labor LawLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActMotion to Dismiss GrantedSanctions DeniedCollateral EstoppelPreemption DoctrinePro Se LitigationUnion Officer Removal
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The plaintiff, Suffolk County Association of Municipal Employees, Inc., appealed an order dismissing its complaint against Suffolk County. The Union sought to permanently enjoin the County from imposing mandatory furloughs and discharging employees under a collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court had dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied a preliminary injunction. The appellate court modified the order, finding that the Supreme Court has subject matter jurisdiction. However, it affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, stating that loss of employment does not constitute irreparable harm as affected workers are entitled to reinstatement and back pay if they prevail.

Public EmploymentCollective Bargaining AgreementMandatory FurloughsEmployee DischargeSubject Matter JurisdictionPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable HarmBudget DeficitPersonnel ReductionsAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. 13-09-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2009

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This case arose from a dispute regarding the apportionment of third-party tortfeasor settlement proceeds between an injured employee's workers’ compensation insurance carrier (Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool - TMLIRP) and his trial attorney (Jorge Delgado). Delgado, an employee of the City of South Padre Island, was injured while on duty and received workers' compensation benefits from TMLIRP. After settling a third-party claim against Julia Lee Cabin for $25,028, Delgado filed a declaratory judgment action to determine the distribution of the proceeds, seeking attorney's fees and costs before TMLIRP's subrogation claim. The trial court awarded Delgado $8,342.66 in attorney's fees and $295.00 in court costs, with the balance remitted to TMLIRP. Delgado appealed, arguing for more costs, while TMLIRP cross-appealed, asserting no fees were due and the appeal was frivolous. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Delgado's attorney was entitled to reasonable fees and a proportionate share of expenses as TMLIRP did not actively participate in the settlement.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationAttorney's FeesThird-Party ActionSettlement ProceedsStatutory ConstructionLabor CodeDeclaratory JudgmentAbuse of DiscretionAppellate Review
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The City of the Colony and Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool (TML Risk Pool) appealed the trial court's dismissal of their appeal regarding a workers' compensation benefits award to Brandon Burns. Appellants challenged the timeliness of the City's intervention, TML Risk Pool's standing, and the award of attorney's fees. Brandon Burns cross-appealed on attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the City's petition in intervention was untimely, TML Risk Pool lacked standing as it was not an 'insurance carrier' under the labor code, and the attorney's fees awards were proper. The cross-appeal on attorney's fees was also overruled as Burns failed to show how the trial court's actions resulted in an improper judgment.

Appellate ReviewStandingInterventionTimelinessEquitable TollingAttorney's FeesJurisdictionSelf-InsuranceGovernmental EntityTexas Labor Code
References
25
Case No. 13-05-555-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2006

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Nieves Tamez, an Edinburg Police Department officer, was injured in an automobile accident while on duty. He received workers' compensation benefits from the Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool (TML-IRP) and settled a claim with the at-fault driver. Tamez then sued TML-IRP for additional benefits under an automobile-insurance policy, alleging breach of contract for refusal to pay uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. The trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment against Tamez. On appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the contract interpretation, no waiver of exclusions by TML-IRP, and that Tamez was not a third-party beneficiary of the insurance policy. The Court also overruled Tamez's fourth issue due to inadequate briefing.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractInsurance BenefitsWorkers' CompensationUnderinsured MotoristThird-Party BeneficiaryContract InterpretationAppellate ProcedureEstoppelSubrogation
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,301 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