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. 03-17-00478-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2017

in Re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation: Texas Clean Air Act Enforcement Cases

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, conditionally granted the State's petition for writ of mandamus. The State sought to abate eighteen later-filed cases, initiated by various counties against Volkswagen, concerning enforcement of the Texas Clean Air Act. The court determined that the common-law doctrine of dominant jurisdiction required the abatement of these later-filed suits because the State's enforcement action against Volkswagen was filed first. The court found that venue was proper in both sets of cases and that they were inherently interrelated, involving the same parties, controversy, and environmental law enforcement. The MDL statute was not intended to modify or create an exception to the dominant jurisdiction rule under these unique circumstances, where all actions sought to impose penalties for the same TCAA violations. Therefore, the MDL pretrial court abused its discretion by not granting the State's plea in abatement.

Mandamus ReliefDominant JurisdictionAbatement of SuitsTexas Clean Air ActMultidistrict Litigation (MDL)Environmental LawInterrelated CasesFirst-Filed RuleAppellate Court DecisionVolkswagen Litigation
References
12
Case No. 13-01-00119-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

McAllen Police Officer's Union and the City of McAllen, Texas v. Ricardo Tamez, Individually and as President of the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, and McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association

The City of McAllen and the McAllen Police Officers Union (appellants) appealed a district court order compelling an election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent for the city's police officers. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals in Texas reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that selection by petition is a proper method for designating a bargaining agent and found no evidence of coercion in the petition's circulation. It further concluded that the appellees, Ricardo Tamez and the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, failed to provide 'substantial support' to warrant an election, thus denying their requests for a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus.

Collective BargainingPolice UnionLabor LawElectionPetitionSupervisor InfluenceMajority RepresentationTexas Local Government CodeNational Labor Relations ActAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. 15-24-00116-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2025

Arnulfo Cortez, Jr.; Homero R. Balderas, Brian D. Nipper, Mark F. Van Rosendael and Bryan K. Hugghins v. Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; Gregory Stevens in His Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; And John Beauchamp, in His Official Capacity as Counsel for Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; And T.J. Vineyard, in His Official Capacity as Major for the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement

Appellants have neither identified a waiver of the Appellees’ sovereign immunity nor pled a cause of action to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the Court. Sovereign immunity protects state agencies and officers unless there is a clear waiver. Appellants' claims for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) are barred as administrative remedies were not exhausted, and they are not aggrieved by a final contested case decision. Similarly, claims under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) fail to waive sovereign immunity and seek impermissible relief challenging an unripe agency order. Appellants' ultra vires claims and mandamus requests are also barred because Appellees acted within their statutory authority in taking disciplinary actions and issuing a warning, and no ministerial duty to grant SOAH hearings for all Appellants exists. Therefore, the trial court properly granted Appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA)Ultra Vires ClaimsMandamus ReliefPeace Officer LicensureLaw Enforcement DisciplineTexas Courts of AppealsJudicial Review
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Home Indemnity Co. v. Rios

Porfirio R. Rios sued The Home Indemnity Company to enforce a compromise settlement agreement approved by the Industrial Accident Board and sought attorney's fees and a 12% penalty under Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 8307, § 12 and § 5a. The trial court awarded the fees and penalty. On appeal, the court examined whether the Board's approval of a compromise settlement agreement constituted a 'final order, ruling or decision' under Section 5a, which would authorize the attorney's fee and penalty. The court distinguished previous interpretations, noting a change in the Board's rules regarding enforcement, and concluded that a compromise settlement agreement does not fall under Section 5a's definition of a 'final order' necessary to trigger the statutory penalty and fees. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the statutory attorney's fee and penalty were not recoverable.

Compromise Settlement AgreementWorker's Compensation InsuranceStatutory Attorney's FeesStatutory PenaltyIndustrial Accident BoardFinal Order InterpretationTexas Civil StatutesAppellate ReviewJudgment ReversalInsurance Carrier Liability
References
8
Case No. M2019-00126-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2019

David Mark Sloane v. Tennessee Department of State, Business Services Division

David Mark Sloane appealed civil penalties assessed by the Tennessee Department of State, Business Services Division, for violations of the Athlete Agent Reform Act of 2011. Sloane, acting as an unregistered athlete agent, initiated contact with and represented a student athlete, Justus Sheffield. The Administrative Law Judge reduced the initial penalties, and the trial court affirmed this decision. Sloane challenged the ALJ's denial of discovery motions, the classification of Sheffield as a student athlete, selective enforcement by the Appellee, and the constitutionality of the penalties. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, concluding Sloane admitted to the violations and failed to provide evidence supporting his claims of selective enforcement or unconstitutional penalties.

Athlete agent regulationCivil penaltiesAdministrative lawJudicial reviewAthlete Agent Reform Act of 2011Selective enforcement claimDue processEighth Amendment challengeTennessee ConstitutionStudent athlete definition
References
31
Case No. ADJ4579659
Regular
Sep 09, 2009

DEE ANNE RAMIREZ vs. DRIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES, ONE BEACON INSURANCE CO.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address applicant's arguments regarding penalties and attorney fees. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision to award a 10% penalty for delayed payment, finding it appropriate given the circumstances. However, the issue of attorney fees under Labor Code section 5814.5 was deferred and returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine a reasonable fee based on actual services rendered in enforcing the award. The Board also noted potential unpaid interest on the penalty, advising applicant to seek enforcement if unresolved.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code section 5814Compromise and ReleaseRehabilitation CompromiseWCJLabor Code section 5814.5Attorney's FeeEn Banc Decision
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02370 [237 AD3d 1139]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2025

Whitfield v. Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Assn.

The plaintiff, John "Divine G" Whitfield, doing business as Divine G Entertainment, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted the defendants' motion to dismiss his amended complaint. Whitfield had sued Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association (LEEBA) and its members for fraud and unjust enrichment, alleging inadequate payment for website and paralegal services. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that Whitfield failed to adequately allege injury for fraud and that civil conspiracy claims stand or fall with the underlying tort. The court also determined that defendants were not unjustly enriched and that the plaintiff failed to establish an employer-employee relationship necessary for Labor Law and FLSA claims. Additionally, claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress were dismissed for failing to meet rigorous standards, and piercing the corporate veil was not adequately pleaded.

FraudUnjust EnrichmentEmployment RelationshipQuantum MeruitLabor LawFLSAEmotional DistressCorporate VeilPiercing Corporate VeilPleading Sufficiency
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vallecillo v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant's counsel, Gerarda M. Rella, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that imposed two $500 penalties. The initial penalty stemmed from a venue request filed without reasonable grounds, seeking a hearing in White Plains despite the claimant residing in Brooklyn and working in Queens, for attorney convenience. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's denial of the venue change and the initial penalty. An additional $500 penalty was assessed for a frivolous appeal to the Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Rella's venue request lacked justification and that the Board appropriately exercised its discretion in imposing both penalties, especially given Rella's prior awareness of venue rules in similar matters.

Workers' Compensation LawAttorney MisconductFrivolous AppealVenue RequestMonetary PenaltyAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionProcedural MotionNew York LawAdministrative Law
References
8
Case No. 2019-01-0122
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2019

Lowder, William v. XPO Logistics Freight, Inc.

William Lowder, a driver for XPO Logistics, developed hernias on January 2, 2019, after delivering solar panels. XPO Logistics initially denied the claim but later accepted it as part of an ongoing mediation process. Mr. Lowder then requested a 25% penalty for the late payment of temporary disability benefits, specifically temporary partial disability benefits. The Court assessed a $1,098.71 penalty against XPO Logistics under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-205(b)(3)(A) for failing to pay temporary disability benefits within twenty days of having knowledge of Mr. Lowder's disability, rejecting XPO's arguments that the penalty only applied to temporary total disability benefits or required a finding of 'bad faith'.

Workers' CompensationPenalty AssessmentTemporary Disability BenefitsLate PaymentHernia ClaimStatutory InterpretationBad FaithTennessee LawEmployer LiabilityDisability Benefits
References
5
Case No. E2014-01775-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2015

Jimmy L. Hensley v. Cocke Farmers Cooperative

Jimmy L. Hensley sued his former employer, Cocke Farmer’s Cooperative, to enforce a severance agreement. The agreement provided for severance pay if Hensley's employment was terminated without cause. The trial court granted Hensley's motion for summary judgment, finding the agreement valid, enforceable, and supported by adequate consideration, and awarded him severance benefits. The Cooperative appealed, arguing the contract was vague, lacked consideration, and the severance constituted an unenforceable penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding the agreement was clear, continuing employment was sufficient consideration, and the severance benefits were not liquidated damages or a penalty, thus upholding the award for Hensley.

Severance AgreementAt-Will EmploymentContract EnforceabilitySummary JudgmentAdequate ConsiderationLiquidated DamagesMitigation of DamagesCorporate GovernanceBoard of DirectorsEmployment Contracts
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 2,512 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