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
Feb 09, 1984

Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital v. Justice

Joseph Justice, an employee of Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital, suffered a heart attack while working, leading to a worker's compensation claim. A jury found his heart attack was work-related, causing total temporary incapacity for 370 weeks, and that the hospital failed to provide reasonable medical care. Despite the jury's initial finding on wages, the trial court disregarded it, ruling that Justice's average daily wage qualified for the maximum compensation rate. Justice died after the verdict but before the judgment was signed. The hospital appealed, challenging the court's wage determination and a perceived improper argument by Justice's counsel, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the wages conclusively proved and the argument error waived.

Worker's CompensationHeart AttackTemporary IncapacityJury VerdictTrial Court DiscretionAverage Weekly Wage CalculationMaximum Compensation RateJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoImproper ArgumentWaiver of Error
References
6
Case No. 13-08-00269-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2009

Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division, Nueces County Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Nueces County Community Supervision and Corrections, and Nueces County Adult Probation Department

Appellants Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero appealed the trial court's grant of a plea to the jurisdiction in favor of appellees, including the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Nueces County entities. Appellants alleged federal civil rights violations and torts under the Texas Tort Claims Act, stemming from sexual harassment and assault during their incarceration. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the federal civil rights claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, determining that the appellees were state entities immune from such suits, and found claims for injunctive relief moot as appellants were no longer incarcerated. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act, remanding for further proceedings to allow discovery and amendment of pleadings regarding allegations of premise defect and the use of tangible personal property, consistent with prior rulings.

Plea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActFederal Civil RightsSection 1983Premise DefectTangible Personal PropertyNegligent Hiring and SupervisionSexual MisconductIncarceration Conditions
References
15
Case No. 09-19-00101-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2019

Brian W. Justice v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, on Behalf of the Registered Holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust 2007-AC2, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-AV2

Brian W. Justice appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, regarding a breach of contract and judicial foreclosure claim. Justice had defaulted on a promissory note, leading Wells Fargo to seek foreclosure on his property. Following a summary judgment for Wells Fargo, Justice, through an attorney, moved to set aside the judgment and for a new trial, arguing he lacked notice due to being out of state. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Justice failed to prove his failure to respond was not due to conscious indifference and that Wells Fargo had adequately demonstrated its status as the note holder. Additionally, the court ruled that Justice waived his objection to attorney's fees by not raising it at the trial level.

Summary Judgment AppealBreach of ContractJudicial ForeclosurePromissory Note DefaultHome EquityDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceHolder of Note
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campos v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Appellants, Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero, appealed a trial court's order granting a plea to the jurisdiction in favor of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Community, Justice Assistance Division, and Nueces County entities. Appellants alleged federal civil rights violations and torts under the Texas Tort Claims Act for sexual harassment and assault while incarcerated at the Nueces County Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the federal civil rights claims, finding the appellees to be state entities immune under section 1983 and the claims for injunctive relief moot. However, the court reversed and remanded the claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act, specifically those related to premise defect, use of tangible personal property, and negligent hiring, training, and supervision, allowing for further discovery and amendment of pleadings.

Sovereign immunityTexas Tort Claims ActPlea to jurisdictionSection 1983Premise defectTangible personal propertyNegligent hiringNegligent supervisionSexual harassmentSexual assault
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington Legal Foundation v. Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation

The Washington Legal Foundation, along with a Texas attorney and a legal services consumer, challenged the mandatory Texas Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA) Program, alleging violations of their First and Fifth Amendment rights. They claimed the program constituted a taking of property without just compensation and compelled financial support for objectionable organizations. The Defendants, including the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation and Supreme Court Justices, sought summary judgment, arguing the IOLTA program did not infringe on constitutional rights and served a legitimate state interest in providing legal services to the indigent. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, concluding that no cognizable property interest in the IOLTA-generated interest existed and no First Amendment violations occurred. Consequently, all plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Fifth AmendmentFirst AmendmentIOLTA ProgramTaking ClauseFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationSummary JudgmentTexasState BarLegal Services
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levias v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice

Plaintiff Oscar Levias, an African-American male, sued Defendant Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) under Title VII, alleging failure to promote and retaliation. Levias claimed he was denied promotions to Assistant Plant Manager in November 2000 (when Danny Ticknor, a white male, was reassigned) and February 2002 (when James McDaniel, a white male, was hired), and to Plant Manager in April 2001 (when Alan Albright, a white male, was assigned). He also filed an EEOC complaint in June 2001, asserting discrimination and later retaliation. The court granted TDCJ's motion for summary judgment regarding Albright's appointment, finding Levias failed to establish he sought the position. However, the court denied summary judgment for the other failure-to-promote claims and the retaliation claim, concluding that Levias presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find pretext or a mixed motive for discrimination and retaliation. The court discussed the impact of Desert Palace v. Costa on the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting paradigm, affirming that direct evidence is not required for a mixed-motive instruction in Title VII cases.

Title VIIEmployment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationFailure to PromoteRetaliationSummary JudgmentMcDonnell DouglasMixed-Motive TheoryPretextEEOC
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beaumont v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Plaintiffs Glen Beaumont and Jared Fielder, correctional officers, sued the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. The claims arose from an incident where a Black lieutenant made racially charged and gender-derogatory remarks. Following this, the plaintiffs reported the incident and filed EEOC charges, alleging retaliation through denial of promotion, job reassignment, negative performance entries, and denied training. The court granted TDCJ's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the single incident of harassment, while offensive, was not severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment. Additionally, the court found that the alleged retaliatory actions either lacked a causal connection to protected activity or were not materially adverse employment actions under Title VII standards.

Employment DiscriminationRacial HarassmentRetaliationTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentCorrectional OfficersFederal CourtFifth CircuitProtected Activity
References
140
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Simons

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division (TDCJ) appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and no-evidence motion for summary judgment. The case involves Brian Edward Simons, an incarcerated individual who sued TDCJ for injuries. The central legal question is whether TDCJ received "actual notice" of Simons's claim, a requirement under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The court considered the recent amendment to Government Code section 311.034, which makes statutory prerequisites to suit jurisdictional, and applied it retroactively. Analyzing the "subjective awareness" standard for actual notice, the court found that TDCJ's internal investigation, which concluded Simons was at fault, and communications from Simons's legal assistant, did not demonstrate TDCJ had subjective awareness that its own fault contributed to Simons's injury. Consequently, the court held that TDCJ lacked actual notice, reversed the trial court's order, and dismissed Simons's claim for want of jurisdiction.

Texas Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityActual NoticeSubjective AwarenessGovernmental Unit ImmunityJurisdictional PrerequisitesRetroactive Application of StatuteProcedural LawSummary Judgment MotionPlea to Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. 08-20-00050-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2021

Bibiana Flores v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Bibiana Flores, a former correctional officer for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), appealed the trial court's decision granting TDCJ's plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment. Flores alleged discrimination and retaliation claims under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) after her termination in 2013, claiming unlawful employment practices due to a disability. The central issue revolved around whether her request for a shift change to attend physical therapy constituted a protected activity under the TCHRA's retaliation provisions. Citing recent Texas Supreme Court precedent in Lara II, the court concluded that Flores failed to demonstrate her accommodation request alerted TDCJ to a reasonable belief of unlawful discrimination. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Flores's claims due to her failure to establish a prima facie case for retaliation, thereby affirming the trial court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Employment LawRetaliation ClaimDisability DiscriminationTexas Labor CodeTCHRASovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionSummary JudgmentProtected ActivityReasonable Accommodation
References
28
Case No. 08-22-00130-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2023

Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Rita Tidwell

Rita Tidwell sued her former employer, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), alleging retaliatory termination for filing a workers' compensation claim after a job injury. TDCJ appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity. The Court of Appeals examined whether Tidwell provided sufficient jurisdictional facts to waive TDCJ's immunity, specifically focusing on a causal link between her workers' compensation claim and termination. The court concluded that Tidwell failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, finding insufficient circumstantial evidence to support a causal connection or to show TDCJ's stated reason for termination (exhaustion of leave options under a uniformly enforced policy) was pretextual. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and rendered judgment in favor of TDCJ.

Workers' Compensation RetaliationGovernmental ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Labor Code Chapter 451Absence Control PolicyPrima Facie CaseCircumstantial EvidenceCausal LinkModified Duty AssignmentAdministrative Separation
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 1,220 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