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. 05-18-00239-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2019

Barbara Stegall, Individually, and on Behalf of the Estate of Joe Stegall v. TML Multistate Intergovernmental Employee Benefits Pool, Inc., and UMR, Inc.

This dissenting opinion argues against the majority's conclusion that TML, an intergovernmental self-insurance risk pool, and its third-party administrator, UMR, are governmental entities entitled to immunity from Barbara Stegall's tort claims. Justice Partida-Kipness contends that the 'governmental–proprietary distinction,' typically applied to municipalities, should extend to TML and UMR because they perform both governmental and proprietary functions. The dissent asserts that the appellees' actions related to adjusting Mr. Stegall's insurance claim, such as denying chemotherapy and withholding coverage authorizations, constituted proprietary functions, not governmental ones. Consequently, the dissenting justice believes TML and UMR should not be immune from tort claims arising from these actions and would reverse the granting of the appellees’ pleas to the jurisdiction.

Governmental ImmunityProprietary FunctionsIntergovernmental Risk PoolTort ClaimsSovereign ImmunityTexas LawMunicipalitiesClaims AdjustmentThird-Party AdministratorImmunity Waiver
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Casualty Insurance Co. v. Functional Restoration Associates

Continental Casualty Insurance Company (Continental) sought judicial review after the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) affirmed a decision holding Continental liable for medical treatment costs provided by Functional Restoration Associates (FRA) and Productive Rehabilitation Institute of Dallas for Ergonomics (PRIDE) to an injured employee. The trial court dismissed Continental's suit, citing a lack of statutory basis for judicial review of the Division of Medical Review (DMR) decisions. On appeal, Continental argued for both statutory and inherent rights to judicial review. The appellate court found no explicit or implied statutory right but concluded that Continental had an inherent right to judicial review because the Commission's decision affected Continental’s vested property interest (money). The court also rejected the Commission's argument regarding untimely filing. Consequently, the court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the Commission's decision was arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Judicial ReviewMedical Benefits DisputeWorkers' CompensationAdministrative LawDue ProcessProperty RightsStatutory InterpretationRemandTexas LawAppellate Court
References
30
Case No. 03-97-00103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1998

Continental Casualty Insurance Company v. Functional Restoration Associates Texas Workers' Compensation Commission And Productive Rehabilitation Institute of Dallas for Ergonomics

Continental Casualty Insurance Company (Continental) appealed a trial court's dismissal of its lawsuit against Functional Restoration Associates (FRA), Productive Rehabilitation Institute of Dallas for Ergonomics (PRIDE), and the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission). Continental sought judicial review of a Commission decision holding it liable for medical costs for an injured employee, James Hood. The trial court had dismissed the suit, citing a lack of statutory jurisdiction for judicial review of Division of Medical Review (DMR) decisions. On appeal, Continental asserted both statutory and inherent bases for jurisdiction. The appellate court found no explicit or necessarily implied statutory right to judicial review of DMR decisions. However, it concluded that Continental possessed an inherent right to judicial review because the Commission's decision directly affected Continental's vested property interest in the money it was ordered to pay. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment of dismissal and remanded the cause for further proceedings, including a review of whether the Commission's decision was arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawDue ProcessVested Property RightsMedical Benefits DisputeAppellate JurisdictionTexas LawStatutory InterpretationSubstantial Evidence
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of La Porte v. Prince

Justice Vance concurs with the award of actual damages but dissents from the majority's decision to affirm exemplary damages against the City of La Porte, arguing a lack of clear governmental immunity waiver. The opinion emphasizes the distinction between governmental and proprietary municipal functions, noting that the Texas Tort Claims Act, which governs governmental functions, does not authorize recovery of exemplary damages. Vance cites various legal precedents and statutory provisions, including the workers' compensation statute, to support the argument that no specific and express waiver for exemplary damages exists for governmental functions, particularly in cases involving city employment and workers' compensation claims. The dissent concludes that the judgment should be reformed to eliminate exemplary damages.

Governmental ImmunityExemplary DamagesTort Claims ActWorkers' CompensationMunicipal LiabilitySovereign ImmunityGovernmental FunctionsProprietary FunctionsWrongful DischargeTexas Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bean v. City of Monahans

The case involves William O. Bean, a former employee of the City of Monahans, Texas, who sued the city for a knee injury incurred while driving a garbage truck, which later resulted in leg amputation. The accident occurred while he was attempting to free the truck from an obstruction. At the time, the City of Monahans did not have a workmen's compensation insurance policy. Bean appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City, arguing he was engaged in a proprietary rather than a governmental function when injured. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that garbage collection is a governmental function, thus granting the city immunity from liability.

Governmental FunctionProprietary FunctionMunicipal LiabilitySummary JudgmentGarbage CollectionWorkers' CompensationImmunityPersonal InjuryTexas LawEmployment Law
References
12
Case No. 06-04-00023-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2004

in Re: Randy E. Williams

Seven cities sued Texarkana, d/b/a Texarkana Water Utilities, for contract and tort claims related to water supply. Texarkana invoked governmental immunity, which the trial court denied. The appellate court distinguished between governmental and proprietary functions for immunity. It held that governmental immunity bars tort claims arising from water supply, which is a governmental function under the Texas Tort Claims Act. However, the court found that Texarkana's governmental immunity from suit was waived for contract claims due to the "plead and be impleaded" language in the Texas Local Government Code Section 51.075, interpreting it synonymously with "sue and be sued" based on Supreme Court precedent. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's decision on contract claims and reversed and dismissed the tort claims.

Governmental ImmunityContract LawTort ClaimsMunicipal LiabilityWaiver of ImmunityWater UtilitiesPolitical SubdivisionsStatutory InterpretationTexas LawAppellate Review
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. City of New York

Plaintiff was the victim of a violent sexual assault and robbery on Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) property near the Shea Stadium/Willets Avenue subway station. She commenced an action against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), the City of New York, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), and LIRR, alleging negligence, including failure to maintain the premises in a safe condition by not removing a shantytown inhabited by homeless individuals, and failure to report the presence of illegal aliens to federal authorities. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants. It found NYCTA not liable as the incident did not occur on its property. The City was not liable for negligent performance of a governmental function (police protection) due to the absence of a special relationship with the plaintiff. MTA/LIRR were also found immune, as their actions concerning homeless policy were considered governmental functions, not proprietary. Furthermore, the claim regarding failure to report illegal aliens was dismissed as the relevant statute (8 USC § 1373) does not impose an affirmative duty or create a private right of action. The plaintiff's request for further discovery was denied.

Sexual AssaultRobberyNegligence ClaimGovernmental ImmunityProprietary FunctionHomeless PolicySummary Judgment GrantedDiscovery SanctionsLIRR PropertyNYCTA Liability
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guillory v. Port of Houston Authority

This dissenting opinion concerns John Guillory, who suffered permanent disabilities after an accident at the Port of Houston Authority due to defective leased trucks. The Port of Houston, classified as a navigation district, benefits from liability limitations under the Texas Tort Claims Act, capping Guillory's recovery. The dissenting justice argues this distinction is arbitrary and unconstitutional, as municipalities like the Ports of Galveston and Orange, performing similar proprietary functions, face no such limits. The opinion asserts that this unequal treatment of similarly situated individuals violates the equal protection clause of the Texas Constitution, lacking any rational basis related to the Tort Claims Act's purpose.

Governmental ImmunityEqual ProtectionTexas ConstitutionTort Claims ActNavigation DistrictsProprietary FunctionsPersonal InjuryLiability LimitationWorkers' RightsDissenting Opinion
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

23 East 10 L.L.C. v. Albert Apartment Corp.

This case addresses a landlord-tenant dispute concerning the necessity of a sidewalk hatch providing basement access for a restaurant. The landlord argued the hatch was a mere convenience and not essential, and that the plaintiffs were bound by their failure to include hatch-use language in a new proprietary lease. However, the court found these arguments unavailing, noting that uncontroverted testimony demonstrated the daily critical use of the hatch for deliveries and garbage, making it a necessary appurtenance due to the impracticality of internal alternatives. The decision affirmed that appurtenant rights transfer to tenants unless specifically reserved, and the continuous use of the hatch by the restaurant since the initial sublease implied its essentiality to the premises' function.

Landlord-Tenant DisputeCommercial LeaseAppurtenanceSidewalk AccessEasement by ImplicationSubtenant RightsProprietary LeaseReal Estate LawRestaurant OperationsNecessary Use
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goodson v. City of Abilene

This case involves a premises liability claim brought by Christina Goodson, individually and on behalf of Zachary Goodson, against the City of Abilene. Zachary was injured when he fell into the basement of the City's library, allegedly due to an unsafe railing built in 1959. The trial court granted the City's plea to the jurisdiction, a decision that was affirmed on appeal. The appellate court held that governmental immunity was not waived by the Texas Tort Claims Act for pre-1970 acts or omissions. Furthermore, while the operation and maintenance of a library could be a proprietary function for pre-1970 common-law claims, the specific allegations regarding the railing's design or lack of warnings concerned discretionary decisions, for which governmental immunity was not waived.

Premises LiabilityGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActDiscretionary FunctionProprietary FunctionMunicipal LiabilityPre-1970 ConstructionBuilding Code ComplianceAttractive NuisancePlea to the Jurisdiction
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 599 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