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. 07-14-00405-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2014

City of Plainview Texas, William Mull, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Plainview Police Department, and Ken Coughlin, Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Plainview Police Department v. Korey Ferguson

Korey Ferguson, a police officer for the City of Plainview, Texas, was terminated after an alleged incident of excessive force involving citizen Amber Washington. Ferguson contended that the City violated Texas Government Code Sections 614.023(a) and (b) by failing to provide him with a copy of Washington's signed complaint before taking disciplinary action. The Trial Court ruled in favor of Ferguson, ordering his reinstatement with back pay, based on the belief that noncompliance with the statute mandated this remedy. The City of Plainview is appealing this decision, arguing that reinstatement is not a mandatory remedy for the statutory violation, that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support Ferguson's reinstatement given his unfitness as an officer, and that the order to reinstate him is against public policy.

Police MisconductExcessive ForceReinstatementDue ProcessStatutory ComplianceTexas Government CodeCivil ServiceAdministrative LawPublic PolicyAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Village of Southampton v. Village of Southampton Police Benevolent Ass'n

The Village of Southampton initiated a petition to permanently stay an arbitration sought by the Village of Southampton Police Benevolent Association (PBA). The PBA had demanded arbitration concerning benefits for former police sergeant Christopher A. Broich, who was terminated in 2007 for misconduct, a decision upheld by the Appellate Division. Broich's claims for benefits arose after he was granted World Trade Center accidental disability retirement benefits, prompting the PBA to argue for the reinstatement of various village benefits under their collective bargaining agreement. The Village contended that Broich, as a terminated employee, was ineligible for such benefits and that prior court judgments affirming his termination had res judicata effect. The court sided with the Village, granting the petition to permanently stay arbitration and denying the PBA's cross-motion, concluding that Broich's status as a terminated employee meant he could not invoke the CBA's grievance procedure and that res judicata applied.

ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic Employment Relations BoardRes JudicataTermination of EmploymentEmployee BenefitsDisability RetirementWorkers' CompensationMisconduct
References
10
Case No. 03-96-00130-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1997

Milton O'Bryant Leonard Hendon, Jr. Jimmie Cross Joe Ortiz And Marvin Rasco v. City of Midland Richard L. Czech, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police, City of Midland Police Department And J. W. Marugg, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Lieutenant, City of Midland Police Department

Several police officers sued their employer, the City of Midland, and supervisors for alleged unlawful employment practices, including retaliation due to their disabilities and prior lawsuits. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment regarding claims of tortious interference, intentional infliction of economic injury, and requests for back pay for constitutional violations. However, it reversed and remanded the judgment concerning official and derivative sovereign immunity, intentional infliction of emotional distress, reinstatement for constitutional violations, and breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing, finding genuine issues of material fact. The court also vacated and dismissed the Texas Labor Code claims due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Official ImmunitySovereign ImmunityEmployment LawRetaliation ClaimsDisability DiscriminationSummary Judgment ReversalTexas Constitutional RightsIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingTortious Interference with Contract
References
32
Case No. 02-11-00229-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2012

Jayson Steele v. City of Southlake, Texas, and Wade Goolsby, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police Southlake Department of Public Safety

Jayson Steele, a police sergeant for the City of Southlake, Texas, reported alleged misconduct by his department, including issues with case interference and falsifying workers' compensation claims, to the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office. He also sent anonymous emails to city officials outlining these concerns and later sent a second email falsely claiming to be a retired officer to divert an internal investigation into the anonymous emails. Steele was subsequently fired. He sued the City of Southlake and Chief Wade Goolsby under the Whistleblower Act, alleging retaliation. The trial court granted summary judgment and a plea to the jurisdiction to the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the City conclusively proved its affirmative defense that Steele would have been terminated solely due to his untruthfulness and deceptive actions during the internal investigation, regardless of his protected whistleblower reports. The court emphasized the critical importance of truthfulness for police officers.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationTermination of EmploymentPolice MisconductUntruthfulnessDeceptionSummary JudgmentAffirmative DefensePublic EmployeeOfficial Capacity
References
29
Case No. 03-11-00594-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2014

Michael Hamilton v. Mark Washington, in His Capacity as City of Austin Civil Service Director Art Acevedo, in His Capacity as City of Austin Chief of Police The City of Austin, Gary Cobb and Stephen Edmonds, in Their Capacity as Members of Austin Firefighters

Michael Hamilton, an Austin Police Department officer, was indefinitely suspended and sought an appeal with the Austin Firefighters’ and Police Officers’ Civil Service Commission. His appeal was rejected as deficient for failing to include specific statutory language. Hamilton then sued various City of Austin officials and the City, seeking declaratory relief, a writ of mandamus, and to set aside the Commission's decision, along with a breach of contract claim. The district court granted the City's plea to the jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, ruling that the district court had jurisdiction over constitutional and ultra vires claims against the officials but lacked jurisdiction for reinstatement, back pay, lost benefits, and the breach of contract claim due to unexhausted administrative remedies.

Governmental ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionDeclaratory Judgment ActMandamusUltra ViresCivil Service ActExhaustion of Administrative RemediesCollective Bargaining AgreementStandingConstitutional Law
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2017

Morris v. New York State Police

Plaintiffs Shannon Morris, Melissa Lee, and Kevin Rafferty, forensic scientists at the New York State Police Crime Lab, initiated a civil rights action against the State Police and seven individual administrators. They alleged retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights by advocating for the TrueAllele DNA analysis method and reporting alleged professional misconduct by Director Pizziketti. Additionally, they claimed gender discrimination, a hostile work environment, and defamation. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion, dismissing claims against the State Police based on sovereign immunity and most discrimination claims, but allowing First Amendment retaliation and certain Title VII retaliation claims, as well as common law defamation claims against specific individual defendants to proceed to discovery.

First Amendment Retaliation42 U.S.C. § 1983Title VII Civil Rights ActGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentDefamationLibelSovereign ImmunityEleventh AmendmentDNA Analysis
References
79
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jayson Steele v. City of Southlake, Texas, and Wade Goolsby, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police Southlake Department of Public Safety

Jayson Steele, a police sergeant for the City of Southlake, Texas, appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Southlake and its Chief of Police, Wade Goolsby. Steele alleged he was retaliated against for whistleblowing about misconduct within the police department, including alleged crimes, an improper citation quota system, and interference with cases. After anonymously reporting these issues and then sending a second email using a retired officer's name to divert an investigation into the anonymous emails, Steele was terminated. The city maintained that he was fired for untruthfulness and deception during the internal investigation, a violation of departmental policy. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that the city had proven an affirmative defense that Steele would have been terminated solely for his untruthfulness, irrespective of his whistleblower activities.

Whistleblower ProtectionEmployment LawGovernmental ImmunityPublic PolicyPolice DepartmentInternal AffairsDisciplinary ActionCredibilityDue ProcessTexas Government Code
References
30
Case No. 93 CV 4888 (ADS)
Regular Panel Decision

Wenzel v. Nassau County Police Department

The plaintiff, Mary Ann Wenzel, a former Nassau County Police Officer, sued the Nassau County Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging civil rights violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants sought dismissal, claiming the statute of limitations had expired. Wenzel argued for tolling the statute due to insanity under CPLR § 208. Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky recommended against tolling, finding Wenzel capable of protecting her legal rights. District Judge Spatt adopted this recommendation, ruling that Wenzel did not meet the "insanity" criteria for tolling the statute of limitations. Consequently, the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Civil RightsStatute of LimitationsTolling ProvisionInsanity Defense42 U.S.C. Section 1983CPLR Section 208Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissDepression
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2012

Claim of Cook v. East Greenbush Police Department

The claimant, a patrol officer for the East Greenbush Police Department, filed for workers' compensation benefits after being diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder following a traumatic incident in January 2009 involving an armed suspect. His claim was denied by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, who found that the events giving rise to his injury were part of his job responsibilities. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that for a mental injury from work-related stress to be compensable, the stress must exceed that normally encountered in the work environment. The court concluded that while the specific encounter was "extraordinary," the possibility of needing deadly force is an inherent part of a police officer's regular duties, regardless of department size. Therefore, the Board's decision to deny benefits was upheld.

Posttraumatic Stress DisorderPTSDMental InjuryWork-Related StressPolice OfficerAccidental InjuryWorkers' Compensation BenefitsScope of EmploymentNormal Work EnvironmentDeadly Force
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,845 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