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. 03-21-00120-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2022

Brian Manley, Chief of Austin Police Department Brian Manley, Individually Commander Mark Spangler, Austin Police Department Lt. Jerry Bauzon, Austin Police Department Officer Benjamin Bloodworth, Austin Police Department Officer Collin Fallon, Austin Police Department Sgt. Eric Kilcollins, Training Coordinator, Austin Police Academy And Officer Shand, Lead Instructor, Stress Reaction Training, Austin Police Academy v. Christopher Wise

Christopher Wise, a former Austin Police Academy cadet, sued Brian Manley (APD Chief) and six other APD officers after sustaining severe injuries, including heat exhaustion and stroke, during a stress reaction training in October 2018. Wise alleged that officers intentionally discouraged cadets from hydrating despite high temperatures and failed to provide timely medical aid. The defendants sought dismissal under the Texas Tort Claims Act's election-of-remedies provisions. The district court dismissed claims against the City of Austin and APD but not against the individual officers. The appellate court reversed the district court's decision, ruling that Wise's claims against the individual officers were based on conduct within the scope of their employment and could have been brought under the TTCA, thus mandating their dismissal.

Texas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityElection of RemediesScope of EmploymentPolice MisconductCadet InjuryHeat IllnessSupervisor NegligenceAppellate CourtReversal
References
25
Case No. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

Gerard Matzen// Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office v. Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office// Cross-Appellee, Gerard Matzen

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
Case No. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. 03-15-00642-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2015

Travis County Sheriff's Office Senior Certified Peace Officer Dennis Tumlinson v. Carolyn Barnes

Carolyn Barnes sued Officer Dennis Tumlinson, a Travis County Sheriff’s Office Senior Certified Peace Officer, and other Travis County employees, alleging civil and constitutional rights violations, conspiracy, assault, and perjury. Barnes sought monetary damages, injunctive relief, and a declaratory judgment. The Travis County Defendants, including Tumlinson, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court granted dismissal for most defendants but denied it for Officer Tumlinson. This document is Officer Tumlinson’s appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss. The appellant asserts that the court lacks jurisdiction and that he is entitled to immunity based on affirmative defenses of official immunity, statute of limitations, and res judicata. The brief details the history of Barnes's arrests and prior lawsuits against various entities and individuals in Travis and Williamson Counties, framing the current case as a malicious prosecution and collateral attack on criminal judgments.

Official ImmunityQualified ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsRes JudicataCivil Rights ViolationsConstitutional RightsFalse ArrestMalicious ProsecutionAggravated Perjury
References
132
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07262
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2015

Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Ass'n v. County of Westchester

The case involves an action brought by the Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Association and several retired correction officers against the County of Westchester. The plaintiffs sought damages for an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement, claiming the county failed to provide benefits equivalent to Workers' Compensation Law for permanent disability. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss but later granted their motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that no provision in the collective bargaining agreement mandated such payments and that the proposed amendment to the complaint lacked merit.

Collective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsLoss of Earning CapacityPermanent DisabilityLeave to Amend ComplaintAppellate ReviewAffirmationJudiciary Law
References
2
Case No. 03-17-00352-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2018

Vista Medical Center Hospital Vista Healthcare, Inc. And Surgery Specialty Hospital, Inc.// State Office of Risk Management v. State Office of Risk Management// Vista Medical Center Hospital Vista Healthcare, Inc. And Surgery Specialty Hospital, Inc.

This case involves cross-appeals stemming from a dispute over the appropriate reimbursement for medical services provided by Vista Medical Center Hospital and its affiliates to injured employees covered by the State Office of Risk Management (SORM) under Texas workers’ compensation statutes. The district court had affirmed 23 administrative orders that required SORM to make additional payments to Vista, a decision which SORM challenged on appeal citing insufficient evidence. Vista, in turn, cross-appealed the district court's denial of prejudgment interest. The appellate court found substantial evidence supported the administrative law judges' conclusion that SORM's original reimbursement model was unfair and unreasonable, and that Vista's proposed methodology was valid. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's judgment but modified it to include the prejudgment interest that Vista was statutorily entitled to.

Workers' CompensationMedical ReimbursementAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePrejudgment InterestTexas LawHealthcare ProvidersInsurance DisputesFee Guidelines
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

STATE OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT v. Allen

Jerome D. Allen, a juvenile correction officer, was injured in March 2004 during employment. The State Office of Risk Management (SORM), administrator of workers' compensation, accepted head and shoulder injuries but disputed a lower back injury. A contested case hearing and subsequent appeals panel both found Allen's compensable injury extended to his lower back. SORM sought judicial review, and a jury also found in Allen's favor. SORM appealed, arguing the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence (a hearing officer's decision and order) and that the verdict was factually insufficient. The appellate court found any error in admitting the decision and order harmless, as the evidence was cumulative and also presented through SORM's own expert witness. The court also found the evidence factually sufficient to support the jury's verdict, noting Allen's testimony about new back pain symptoms post-injury and the compensability of aggravating a pre-existing condition. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewHearsay EvidenceFactual SufficiencyJury VerdictCompensable InjuryLower Back InjuryPre-existing ConditionMedical RecordsChiropractor Testimony
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLaurin v. New Rochelle Police Officers

Plaintiff Charles B. MeLaurin filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous New Rochelle police officers and city officials, including Peter Kornas, Louis Falcone, Brian Fagan, David Lornegan, Edward Martinez, Dominic Procopio, Mayor Timothy Idoni, and the City of New Rochelle. MeLaurin alleged constitutional rights violations stemming from two arrests: one for assault on August 6, 2001, and another for criminal contempt on September 28, 2002. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting qualified immunity and failure to state a claim. The court granted dismissal with prejudice for most defendants, finding their actions objectively reasonable or lacking personal involvement, or due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim or comply with state law. Claims against Officers Lynch, Lore, Conca, Al-Fattaah, Kamau, and Navarette were dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal involvement. Officer Dina Lynn Moretti's motion was converted to one for summary judgment, giving the plaintiff 45 days to provide evidence regarding probable cause for the second arrest. State law claims were also dismissed due to non-compliance with New York General Municipal Law notice-of-claim requirements.

Excessive ForceFalse ArrestMalicious ProsecutionQualified ImmunityPro Se LitigationMunicipal LiabilityMonell ClaimFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56Civil Rights Violation
References
59
Case No. 05-20-00855-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2021

Emanuel Lewis, on Behalf of Himself and a Class of Certain Dallas County Detention Service Officers v. Dallas County Sheriff Marian Brown, in Her Official Capacity

Officer Emanuel Lewis, a detention security officer, initiated a lawsuit against Dallas County Sheriff Marian Brown, in her official capacity, seeking injunctive relief concerning the operation and conditions of the Dallas County Jail amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Lewis, on behalf of himself and a class of Dallas County detention service officers, alleged the Sheriff acted ultra vires by failing to maintain a sanitary jail and abate a public health nuisance, and was negligent. The trial court granted Sheriff Brown's plea to the jurisdiction, dismissing the claims. On appeal, the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Lewis failed to plead an actionable ultra vires claim as the Sheriff's actions were within her discretionary authority, and the Texas Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity for claims seeking solely injunctive relief.

COVID-19Jail ConditionsGovernmental ImmunityUltra ViresInjunctive ReliefTexas Tort Claims ActDiscretionary AuthorityMinisterial DutiesPublic Health NuisanceClass Action
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simpson v. State Office of Risk Management

Carol G. Simpson, an employee of the Texas Workforce Commission, appealed a judgment in favor of the State Office of Risk Management (SORM) concerning her workers' compensation claim. Simpson developed tenosynovitis and carpal tunnel syndrome due to repetitive typing. After initial approvals by a hearing officer and the Appeals Panel, the district court reversed the decision, leading to Simpson's appeal. The appellate court found the evidence legally insufficient to support the jury's finding that Simpson did not sustain a repetitive trauma injury, reversing the trial court's judgment and affirming the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel's decision.

Workers' CompensationRepetitive Trauma InjuryTenosynovitisCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewOccupational DiseaseErgonomic IssuesOrthopedic SurgeryNeurology Testimony
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,973 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