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. 03-09-00280-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2009

Justin Ryan McCarthy v. State

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, conditionally granted a petition for writ of mandamus filed by the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy. The Board challenged a trial court's order allowing discovery in judicial review suits initiated by three individual accountants concerning the Board's disciplinary decisions. The appellate court held that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not authorize the use of general discovery rules in judicial review proceedings, even when procedural irregularities are alleged. The court reasoned that while the APA provides for discovery at the agency level, it deliberately omits such provisions for judicial review, thereby limiting the scope of review to the agency record except for evidence of procedural irregularities.

Judicial ReviewAdministrative LawMandamusDiscoveryTexas Government CodeAdministrative Procedure ActState AgenciesStatutory InterpretationProcedural IrregularitiesCourt of Appeals
References
5
Case No. 03-09-00280-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2010

Juneth Steubing v. City of Killeen, Texas

The Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, as relator, petitioned for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court's order that allowed three individual accountants to conduct discovery in their suits for judicial review of the Board's disciplinary decisions. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, conditionally granted the mandamus. The court held that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not provide for the application of general discovery procedures to the judicial review of administrative proceedings. It emphasized that discovery is conducted at the agency level, which is considered the trial level, and appellate review is largely limited to the record developed there. While a district court may receive evidence of procedural irregularities, this does not authorize a new round of discovery. Allowing such discovery would contradict the APA's limitations on the standard and scope of judicial review.

MandamusAdministrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewDiscoveryAgency ProceedingsProtective OrderProcedural IrregularitiesSovereign ImmunityStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of Appeals
References
8
Case No. W2013-02801-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2015

John Holmes Peacher-Ryan v. Heirs At Law of Ruth James Gaylor

This case involved an appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals concerning the proper heirs of a residuary trust established by William Arch Gaylor. The trial court had adopted a special master's report without independent review and without the clerk providing proper notice of its filing, as required by Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 53. The appellate court identified several procedural irregularities, including the improper referral of a primary legal issue to a special master and the lack of a transcript of the special master's proceedings. Finding that the trial court failed to comply with Rule 53's mandates for independent review and proper notice to the parties, the Court of Appeals vacated the lower court's order. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural rules.

Probate LawTrusts and EstatesSpecial MasterJudicial ProcedureAppellate PracticeRule 53Vacation of JudgmentRemand for ProceedingsHeirship DisputeEstate Administration
References
28
Case No. 03-09-00280-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2010

in Re Texas State Board of Public Accountancy

The Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, as relator, sought a writ of mandamus to challenge a district court's order that allowed discovery in judicial review suits initiated by three individual accountants. The core legal question was whether general discovery procedures, typically used at the agency (trial) level, are permissible during judicial review of administrative decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court determined that while the APA allows for the introduction of evidence concerning procedural irregularities not reflected in the agency record, it does not authorize a second round of discovery at the district court level. Allowing such discovery would contradict the APA's limitations on the scope of judicial review and its waiver of governmental immunity. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ruling that the district court erred by denying the Board's motion for a protective order and permitting discovery.

Texas Court of AppealsMandamusAdministrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewDiscovery LimitationsAgency AdjudicationProtective OrderGovernmental ImmunityStatutory InterpretationAppellate Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Reich

Plaintiffs, migrant workers, sued the Department of Labor (DOL) and other federal agencies, alleging violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Wagner-Peysner Act. They contended that the DOL unlawfully approved alien labor certification applications, specifically for tree planters hired by Frank Stanley. Plaintiffs argued that tree planters should be classified as agricultural workers, subject to more comprehensive protections under Subparts B and C of 20 C.F.R. § 655, rather than the less stringent procedures of Subpart A and the General Administration Letters. The court addressed the defendants' mootness argument, ruling that the case was capable of repetition yet evading review despite an earlier settlement with Stanley. Ultimately, the court found that tree planters are not agricultural workers under Part 655 and concluded that the DOL did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by applying different procedures for non-agricultural workers.

Administrative Procedures ActImmigration and Nationality ActWagner-Peysner ActAlien Labor CertificationMigrant WorkersTemporary Foreign WorkersAgricultural EmploymentNon-Agricultural EmploymentSummary JudgmentMootness Doctrine
References
11
Case No. ANA 0386138
Regular
Jun 18, 2008

CECIL MORTON vs. RALPH'S, Permissibly Self-Insured, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a defendant's timely petition for removal to reassign the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) due to procedural irregularities. The Appeals Board granted the removal because the defendant was first notified of the trial judge assignment at a mandatory settlement conference and the assigned WCJ failed to follow proper procedure regarding an "Order Suspending Action" for alleged inadequacy. Consequently, the case is reassigned to a different WCJ to determine readiness for trial.

WCAB Rule 10453Petition for RemovalAutomatic ReassignmentWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)Order Suspending ActionAdequacyPolicy and Procedure ManualLabor Code section 5502(e)(3)Stipulations with Request for Award
References
0
Case No. ADJ7035137, ADJ7035142
Regular
Jul 18, 2018

Carmen Martinez vs. Casa Guadalupe Family Clinic, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded nine Orders approving settlements with lien claimants because the defendant's counsel did not receive notice of the lien conference. This lack of notice resulted in the settlements being negotiated and approved without defense counsel's participation, constituting a procedural irregularity. The Board adopted the WCJ's report finding good cause to set aside the orders due to these procedural flaws. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationStipulations and Orders to Pay Lien ClaimantProcedural IrregularitiesLien ConferenceLack of NoticeAttorney RepresentationCalifornia State Bar Rules of Professional ConductGood CauseRescind OrderWCAB
References
4
Case No. ADJ3865022 (LAO 837425) ADJ1234925 (LAO 837426) ADJ4652554 (LAO 889199) ADJ4467339 (LAO 889200)
Regular
Dec 08, 2008

MANUEL VILLARREAL vs. DELUXE LABORATORIES, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board denied Defendant's petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and dismissed their petition for reconsideration as it was not from a final order. The Board noted that Applicant's refiling of dismissed claims was procedurally irregular and that the WCJ incorrectly denied dismissal on procedural grounds without addressing the substantive issue of good cause for relief from dismissal. The case is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to consider Defendant's contention that Applicant must show good cause to set aside the earlier dismissal order and to potentially dismiss the later-filed applications.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationWCJDismissal Without PrejudiceDuplicate ClaimsStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5405Applications for Adjudication of ClaimNotice of Intention to DismissGood Cause to Set Aside Dismissal
References
6
Case No. 71 Civ. 2877
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1990

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Local 580

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sought to enforce subpoenas against entities related to defendants Local 580 and AJEF to uncover their true financial condition. The defendants claimed financial impossibility in complying with a consent judgment regarding discrimination. After a Special Master's initial denial of discovery for certain years was overturned by the court, the defendants and non-parties moved to vacate the Special Master's revised order and dismiss EEOC's appeal, citing procedural irregularities. The court denied their motion, affirming the relevance of the financial records and rejecting their procedural arguments, as well as denying a request for interlocutory appeal certification and a stay of production.

Employment DiscriminationContempt of CourtConsent Judgment EnforcementDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Duces TecumSpecial Master AuthorityFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureInterlocutory AppealUnion FinanceApprenticeship Programs
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Report of the Special Grand Jury

This case involves five appeals challenging the procedures and evidence supporting a Special Grand Jury's reports, which recommended discipline or removal for employees of the Monroe County Department of Social Services. The Grand Jury was empanelled in 1978 to investigate the department's handling of child abuse cases. Although the County Court accepted the reports for filing, it sealed them pending appeal and later affirmed its decision. The appellate court, however, found significant procedural irregularities, including inadequate jury instructions and improper subcommittee formation, and determined that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the misconduct charges against the appellants. Consequently, the County Court's orders were reversed, and the Grand Jury reports were ordered to be sealed.

Grand Jury ReportChild Abuse InvestigationMonroe County Department of Social ServicesPublic Servants MisconductProcedural IrregularitiesSufficiency of EvidenceGrand Jury InstructionsSealing ReportsCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 3,443 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