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. 03-15-00285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2015

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. And Audi of America, Inc. v. John Walker III, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board The Honorable Michael J. O'Malley, the Honorable Penny A. Wilkov, in Their Official Capacities as Administrative Law Judges for the State Office

This case involves an appeal filed by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Audi of America, Inc. (Appellants) against John Walker III, Chairman of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board, and Administrative Law Judges Michael J. O'Malley and Penny A. Wilkov (Appellees). Appellants sought injunctive relief in district court to prevent Appellees from proceeding with an allegedly ultra vires remand of an administrative contested case after a Proposal for Decision (PFD) had been issued. The district court dismissed the lawsuit based on governmental immunity and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Appellants argue that Appellees' actions, including ordering the remand and reopening evidence, exceeded their statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act and Texas Occupations Code, making governmental immunity inapplicable and exhaustion of remedies unnecessary.

Administrative LawUltra Vires ActsGovernmental ImmunityExhaustion of RemediesJudicial ReviewAgency AuthorityState Office of Administrative HearingsRemandContested CasesStatutory Interpretation
References
31
Case No. E2013-00441-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2014

David G. Young, Individually and as City Administrator for the City of Lafollette v. City of Lafollette

This interlocutory appeal concerns a retaliatory discharge action brought by former city administrator David G. Young against the City of LaFollette. The central legal question is whether the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act’s (GTLA) non-jury provision applies to a claim under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA) when brought against a governmental entity. The trial court had denied LaFollette's motion to strike Young's jury demand, permitting this appeal. The Court of Appeals, referencing its precedent in Sneed v. City of Red Bank, reversed the trial court's decision. It concluded that the GTLA's non-jury requirement is applicable to TPPA claims against municipalities, thereby requiring the case to proceed without a jury.

retaliatory dischargejury trialgovernmental immunityTennessee Public Protection ActTennessee Governmental Tort Liability Actmunicipal liabilitystatutory interpretationinterlocutory appealemployment lawsovereign immunity
References
22
Case No. 14-18-00274-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2020

Dr. Louis Patino, D.C. Dr. Stephen Wilson, M.D. And Dr. Gary Craighead, D.C. v. Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers' Compensation Commissioner Cassandra J. Brown and Dr. Donald Patrick, in Their Official and Individual Capacities State Office of Administrative Hearings, Texas Chief Administrative Law Judge Cathleen Parsley in Her Official Capacity Tommy Broyles, in His Official Capacity The State of Texas And the Attorney General of the State of Texas

Three doctors, Patino, Wilson, and Craighead, appealed the dismissal of their claims against the Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers’ Compensation and other state entities. The doctors were excluded from the state's workers' compensation approved doctor list between 2004 and 2007, leading to administrative penalties and a subsequent lawsuit. The trial court dismissed their claims for lack of jurisdiction, asserting immunity. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims challenging final agency orders due to unexhausted administrative remedies and collateral attack immunity. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the doctors' constitutional challenges to the Workers’ Compensation Act and ultra vires claims against the Commissioner, concluding these claims were properly pleaded and not barred by sovereign immunity.

Physician ExclusionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsConstitutional ChallengeDue Process RightsProfessional LicensingGovernment RegulationTexas Labor Code
References
24
Case No. 07-09-00163-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2010

Potter County, Texas as Plan Administrator for the Health Benefits Plan for the Employees of Potter County, Texas v. Ronda Tuckness and Michael Tuckness

Potter County, acting as the plan administrator for its employee health benefits plan, appealed an order that denied its plea to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit was filed by Ronda and Michael Tuckness, seeking health care benefits after the County denied Michael Tuckness's claim for back surgery costs due to an occupational injury exclusion. The County contended it was immune from suit. The appellate court found that the County's governmental immunity had not been waived by the requests for declaratory relief, the terms of the health plan contract, or the County's conduct. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the Tucknesses' case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Governmental ImmunityImmunity WaiverDeclaratory JudgmentContract LawHealth BenefitsPlan AdministratorOccupational Sickness/InjuryJurisdictionPlea to JurisdictionInterlocutory Appeal
References
20
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03363 [184 AD3d 1198]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2020

Green v. Iacovangelo

Plaintiffs commenced an action seeking damages based on allegations that defendants failed to take reasonable efforts to inform them, as next of kin, of the death of their relative, interfering with their right of sepulcher. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed an order which denied the hospital defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether their efforts to locate next of kin were reasonable and sufficient, particularly their failure to contact a known homeless shelter. The court also affirmed the granting of summary judgment to the County defendants, dismissing the complaint against the Public Administrator due to governmental function immunity. The court concluded that the Public Administrator was engaged in a governmental function and did not owe a special duty to the plaintiffs.

Right of SepulcherNext of KinSummary JudgmentGovernmental ImmunityPublic AdministratorHospital NegligenceReasonable EffortsCausationAppellate DivisionMonroe County
References
23
Case No. 03-06-00768-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2008

Texas State University - San Marcos v. Sam and Betty Bonnin, Individually, and as Independent, Co-Administrators of the Estate of Jason Lee Bonnin

Diane Lee Norman sued the Travis Central Appraisal District (TCAD) for retaliatory discharge after being terminated following the filing of a workers' compensation claim, asserting a violation of the Texas Anti-Retaliation Act. TCAD filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing Norman failed to exhaust internal administrative grievance procedures, thus depriving the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court denied TCAD's plea. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that Chapter 451 of the Texas Labor Code, which governs retaliatory discharge, does not require a plaintiff to exhaust a governmental entity's administrative remedies. The court also reaffirmed that governmental immunity for political subdivisions is waived for such claims under Chapter 451, as established in City of LaPorte v. Barfield. The motion for rehearing filed by TCAD was also overruled.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationGovernmental ImmunityAdministrative RemediesSubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Labor Code Chapter 451Appellate LawEmployment TerminationPublic Sector Employment
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Bilus

The defendant, Mitchell J. Bilus, faced charges for obstructing governmental administration in the second degree and stalking in the fourth degree following incidents at the Woodmere Post Office. He filed a motion to dismiss the informations due to facial insufficiency. The court granted the motion, dismissing both charges. It found that a federal postal worker does not qualify as a 'public servant' under the Penal Law for the obstruction charge, and the allegations failed to show an impairment of state governmental function. For the stalking charge, the court ruled that two incidents six months apart did not constitute a 'course of conduct' and the complainant's fear for employment was not reasonably established by the allegations.

Criminal LawObstructing Governmental AdministrationStalkingPenal LawFacial InsufficiencyMotion to DismissPublic Servant DefinitionCourse of ConductNew YorkDistrict Court
References
6
Case No. 15-25-00061-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2025

Francisca Okonkwo, Administrative Law Judge, Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, in Her Official Capacity and Fort Bend County v. Joshua David Heiliger, Individually, and on Behalf of the Estate of Lauren Brittane Smith, and on Behalf of Death Benefits Beneficiaries Joshua David Heiliger and Emma Destiny Heiliger

Fort Bend County appeals a temporary injunction granted by a Harris County District Court, which prevents discovery of mental health records in an ongoing workers' compensation dispute. The underlying administrative case involves a claim for death benefits by Joshua Heiliger, whose spouse, Lauren Brittane Smith, was a paramedic. Heiliger asserts Smith's mental health condition and stress contributed to her death, thus placing her mental health at issue. The Division of Workers' Compensation's Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a subpoena for Smith's mental health records from her psychiatrist, Dr. John Marcellus. Heiliger bypassed the administrative process by obtaining the injunction in District Court. Fort Bend County argues the District Court erred in interfering with the Division's exclusive jurisdiction and that Heiliger failed to exhaust administrative remedies or demonstrate irreparable injury, as Texas law provides a qualified privilege for mental health records with exceptions relevant to this case.

Workers' CompensationTemporary InjunctionDiscovery DisputeMental Health RecordsSubpoena EnforcementAdministrative Law JudgeExclusive JurisdictionExhaustion of Administrative RemediesQualified PrivilegePatient-Litigant Exception
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maldonado v. Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration

This case addresses whether a dismissed action, initially brought against a nonexistent entity with improper service, can be refiled against the intended defendant under CPLR 306-b (b). Plaintiff Maldonado was injured in 1992 and filed an action in 1995, naming "Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration" based on signage, and attempting service on a temporary worker. This first action was dismissed because the named entity did not exist and service was ineffective. Plaintiffs then filed a second action, correctly naming "Maryland Mass Transit Administration." The Supreme Court allowed the second action, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding the first action was not timely commenced. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that the resuscitative remedy of CPLR 306-b (b) is unavailable when the initial action failed to name an existing entity and lacked proper service, thus the first action was not "timely commenced" against the intended defendant.

Dismissed ActionNonexistent EntityImproper ServiceCPLR 306-b (b)Statute of LimitationsCommencement of ActionPersonal JurisdictionCure of DeficiencyAmendment of ComplaintAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. M2014-01073-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2015

Administrative Management Resources, LLC v. James G. Neeley

Administrative Management Resources, LLC (AMR) appealed a decision affirming that it engaged in SUTA dumping by illegally transferring employees between commonly owned entities to obtain lower unemployment insurance premium rates. The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, represented by James G. Neeley, had assessed significant penalties against AMR. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the chancery court's decision, finding substantial and material evidence supported the Department's determination that AMR knowingly violated the Tennessee Employment Security Law. The court also rejected AMR's arguments regarding the Department's authority to aggregate accounts and its due process claims concerning notice and procedural fairness during the administrative hearing.

SUTA dumpingunemployment insurancepremium rate manipulationemployee transfersTennessee Employment Security Lawadministrative decision reviewappellate affirmationcommon ownershipdue processstatutory violation
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 6,036 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