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

Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas, Inc.

This case concerns a concurring opinion regarding Planned Parenthood's challenge to "rider 14," a legislative provision in Texas. The court determines that the challenge is not ripe and Planned Parenthood lacks standing to bring the suit, both in its own right and on behalf of minors. The opinion emphasizes the importance of parental rights in guiding minor children's decisions, particularly concerning health care and sexual behavior, and states that Planned Parenthood's policy of providing minors prescription drugs without parental consent, which it seeks state subsidies for, is inconsistent with Texas law.

StandingRipenessParental RightsMinor's RightsRider 14Texas LawConstitutional LawFunding DisputesHealthcare PolicyFamily Law
References
15
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
Case No. M2014-02293-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2016

William Lane Lanier v. Corie J. Lanier

This case involves an appeal concerning the modification of a parenting plan between divorced parents, Corie J. Lanier (Mother) and William Lane Lanier (Father). Following their 2007 divorce, both parents sought modifications to the initial parenting plan due to changed circumstances. The trial court ultimately designated Father as the primary residential parent, granted him sole decision-making authority, and adjusted Mother's parenting time. On appeal, both parties raised numerous issues, challenging findings regarding material changes, best interests, and decision-making. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in most respects but vacated and remanded the portion of the decision pertaining to the children's vacation schedules for further consideration.

Family LawChild CustodyParenting Plan ModificationChild Support CalculationMaterial Change of CircumstanceBest Interest of the ChildDecision-Making AuthorityParenting TimeAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Robert Plan Corp.

Kenneth Kirschenbaum, the Chapter 7 Trustee for The Robert Plan Corporation and The Robert Plan of New York Corporation, sought court approval for fee awards for himself and his professionals for administering an ERISA plan. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) objected, asserting the court lacked jurisdiction to award fees from Plan assets and had specific objections to the reasonableness of the fees. The court affirmed its core jurisdiction over the Trustee's actions as Plan administrator and his professionals' compensation, regardless of whether payments came from Plan or estate assets, citing previous rulings. The court analyzed whether Bankruptcy Code §§ 326 and 330 conflicted with ERISA statutes concerning fiduciary compensation, concluding no substantive conflict existed and the Bankruptcy Code's specific compensation scheme governed. Ultimately, the court largely overruled DOL's objections and granted the fee applications for the Trustee, K & K, Witz, and Whitfield, deeming the requested amounts reasonable and compliant with the Bankruptcy Code. The awards are payable from the Plan's Pguy Account, with any shortfall covered by the Debtors' estate.

Bankruptcy LawERISAChapter 7 TrusteeFee ApplicationPlan AdministrationJurisdictionReasonable CompensationStatutory ConstructionDepartment of LaborFiduciary Duties
References
50
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01018 [191 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2021

Matter of Tenants United Fighting for the Lower E. Side v. City of New York Dept. of City Planning

The Appellate Division reversed a lower court order that had annulled approvals by the New York City Planning Commission (CPC) for new building constructions. The Supreme Court had initially granted petitions from Tenants United Fighting for the Lower East Side and Lower East Side Organized Neighbors. The appellate court held that the Supreme Court should have deferred to the CPC's reasonable interpretation of the New York City Zoning Resolution (ZR). Specifically, the Appellate Division clarified that ZR § 78-043's requirement for findings as a condition precedent only applies to modifications granted by special permit or authorization, not to other types of modifications to large-scale residential developments. Consequently, the petitions were denied and the proceedings dismissed.

Zoning ResolutionLarge-Scale Residential DevelopmentCity Planning CommissionAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewJudicial DeferenceStatutory InterpretationArticle 78 ProceedingNYC ZoningUrban Planning
References
7
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pig Newton, Inc. v. Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan

Plaintiff Pig Newton, Inc. commenced an action against the Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan, Health Plan, and Individual Account Plan, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Plans’ Trust Agreements were invalid and unenforceable. The Defendants counterclaimed for delinquent contributions under ERISA. The core dispute revolved around "Controlling Employee Provisions" in the Trust Agreements, which obligated employers to contribute for Controlling Employees for a specified number of hours and weeks regardless of actual hours worked. Pig Newton argued these provisions were invalid, not properly incorporated, or conflicted with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The Court, applying federal common law and an arbitrary and capricious standard of review for the Directors' interpretation, found the provisions valid, properly incorporated, and not in conflict with the CBAs, concluding that Szekely (Pig Newton's sole owner) qualified as a Controlling Employee. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and awarding Defendants the sought-after contributions, interest, auditors’ fees, and liquidated damages.

ERISAMultiemployer PlanPension PlanHealth PlanDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentTrust AgreementsCollective Bargaining AgreementsControlling Employee ProvisionsDelinquent Contributions
References
44
Case No. E2015-00908-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2016

Jason Lamar Howard v. Cynthia Teresa Wallin Howard

The Father, Jason Lamar Howard, appealed the trial court's modification of a permanent parenting plan, child support, and its refusal to hold the Mother, Cynthia Teresa Wallin Howard, in contempt. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision regarding criminal contempt. However, it vacated and remanded the issues concerning the parenting plan and civil contempt due to insufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law by the trial court. The appellate court found that the Father had adequate notice of the Mother's intent to seek an increase in parenting time. The case is remanded for the trial court to provide a complete parenting plan with sufficient findings and conclusions for both the parenting plan and the civil contempt petition.

Post-divorceParenting plan modificationChild supportContempt of courtDue processFindings of factConclusions of lawAppellate reviewRemandTennessee law
References
15
Case No. E2014-01385-COA-R3-JV-FILED-MARCH 31, 2015
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2015

In Re Jesslyn C.

This case involves an appeal from a juvenile court's decision regarding the modification of a permanent parenting plan for the minor child, Jesslyn C. The appellant, Kelvin C. (Father), sought to be named the primary residential parent and challenged the reduction of his co-parenting time. The appellee, Jacqueline D. (Mother), requested a modification of the co-parenting schedule. The trial court found a material change in circumstance due to the child's age and schooling, as well as the parents' difficulty cooperating. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error and concluding that the modification of the residential co-parenting schedule was in the child's best interest.

Parenting Plan ModificationChild CustodyResidential ScheduleBest Interest of the ChildMaterial Change in CircumstanceAppellate ReviewJuvenile CourtSullivan CountyCo-ParentingFather's Rights
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Murphy v. Wal-Mart Associates' Group Health Plan

Hazel and Charlie Murphy sued Wal-Mart Associates’ Group Health Plan and Prudential Health Care Plan after the Plan denied coverage for Mr. Murphy's high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplant for Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. The Murphys alleged the Wal-Mart Plan acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying benefits and their subsequent appeal, and brought state law claims against Prudential. The court found that Wal-Mart Plan's decision was based on medical expert opinions and was not arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, it determined that ERISA preempted all state law claims against Prudential. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for both defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims.

ERISAEmployee BenefitsHealth InsuranceSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious StandardMedical NecessityHigh-Dose ChemotherapyAutologous Bone Marrow TransplantNon-Hodgkin’s LymphomaPlan Administrator Discretion
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 2,498 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