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. 13-14-00670-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2015

Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool v. Lloyd K. Aldridge

Aldridge is seeking recovery of attorney's fees for two tasks: negotiating a settlement for policy limits involving a prior injury, and pursuing recovery for the compensation carrier by preventing the running of the statute of limitations. The Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool (TMLIRP) has filed a cross-claim against Lynn Hillyer, the defendant driver, and Aldridge argues that TMLIRP waived sovereign immunity by filing for affirmative relief. Aldridge also asserts that TMLIRP is not a legitimate intergovernmental risk pool as it was not created by governmental units. The brief argues for the proper allocation of settlement funds, including attorney's fees and expenses, from the $30,000 policy limits offered by Hillyer's insurer, to reimburse TMLIRP for its subrogation interest.

SubrogationSovereign ImmunityIntergovernmental Risk PoolAttorney's FeesSettlement AllocationDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ProcedureTexas Government CodeTexas Labor CodeStatute of Limitations
References
12
Case No. 15-25-00134-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2025

Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund // Southwest Texas Junior College v. Southwest Texas Junior College // Cross-Appellee, Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund

This case involves an intergovernmental contract dispute between the Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund (Appellant) and Southwest Texas Junior College (Appellee). The College is seeking replacement cost value benefits under a self-insurance contract for property damage allegedly sustained during an April 2021 hailstorm. The College claims a waiver of the Fund’s governmental immunity under TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 271.152, asserting equitable theories of waiver and unconscionability, and intentional torts of fraud and bad faith to expand coverage beyond the express terms of the agreement. The Fund argued that its governmental immunity had not been waived for these claims and damages, emphasizing that statutory waivers are to be narrowly construed. The trial court partially granted the Fund's jurisdictional plea, dismissing claims for exemplary, consequential, or treble damages, but denied the plea regarding the College's equitable and intentional tort theories, viewing them as defensive in nature. The Fund appeals this partial denial, arguing that the Act's narrow immunity waiver does not extend to these theories which attempt to create coverage where none explicitly exists in the written contract.

Governmental ImmunityContract DisputeSelf-Insurance PoolRisk ManagementEquitable DoctrinesIntentional TortsWaiverUnconscionabilityTexas LawAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Queeman v. State

Robert Alan Queeman appealed his conviction for criminally negligent homicide following a jury trial where he was acquitted of manslaughter but found guilty of the lesser charge. The conviction stemmed from a rear-end collision where Queeman's van struck Maria del Rosario Luna's SUV, resulting in the death of a passenger. The trial court had sentenced Queeman to eighteen months in a state jail facility. The appellate court reviewed the legal sufficiency of the evidence, applying Texas and New York precedents on criminal negligence, which requires proof of 'blameworthy conduct' creating a 'substantial and unjustifiable risk of death'. The court determined that the evidence presented did not demonstrate criminally culpable risk-creating conduct, such as dangerous speeding or failure to obey traffic signals, but rather an inexplicable failure to see Luna's vehicle in time to prevent the collision. Consequently, the appellate court concluded the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the conviction, reversing the trial court’s judgment and rendering a judgment of acquittal.

Criminal Negligent HomicideVehicular HomicideTraffic AccidentRear-End CollisionLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceJury AcquittalConviction ReversalJudgment of AcquittalTexas LawAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Casillas v. State Office of Risk Management

Manny Casillas, an employee, sought lifetime income benefits for job-related injuries, claiming total loss of use of both hands, a claim denied by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission. He subsequently filed for judicial review, prompting the State Office of Risk Management (SORM) to move for a no-evidence summary judgment. Casillas opposed this with an EMG/NCV report and affidavits from himself and his treating chiropractor, Dr. Manuel Moreno. The appellate court first affirmed its jurisdiction, addressing SORM's challenge regarding compliance with statutory judgment filing requirements. Ultimately, the court concluded that Dr. Moreno's affidavit, based on his long-term treatment and expertise, provided sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding Casillas's condition. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation ActLifetime Income BenefitsNo-Evidence Summary JudgmentCarpal Tunnel SyndromeMedical Evidence AdmissibilityJurisdictionAppellate ReviewTotal Permanent Loss of UseChiropractic OpinionExpert Witness Qualification
References
14
Case No. 07-05-0268-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2006

State Office of Risk Management v. Rachel Herrera and Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool

The State Office of Risk Management (SORM) appealed the dismissal of its attempt to judicially review a Texas Worker’s Compensation Commission appeals panel ruling. The trial court had dismissed SORM's petition for lack of jurisdiction, asserting it was not timely filed within 30 days. SORM argued that the dispute concerned compensability, which allowed for a 40-day filing period under the Labor Code. The Court of Appeals determined that the core issue of identifying the responsible employer for death benefits, thereby defining the course and scope of employment, constituted a matter of compensability. Consequently, SORM had 40 days to file. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Worker's CompensationJudicial ReviewJurisdictionTimelinessCompensabilityCourse and Scope of EmploymentDeath BenefitsTexas Labor CodeGovernment CodeAppeals Court
References
3
Case No. 11-05-00417-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 2008

State Office of Risk Management v. Belinda Baker

This workers' compensation case involves the State Office of Risk Management (SORM) appealing an award to Belinda Baker for depression, which she claimed resulted from a work fall. The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission found her injury extended to include depression. SORM sought judicial review. The trial court granted Baker's motion for a directed verdict, concluding SORM failed to present evidence that Baker's injury did not cause her depression recurrence. The appellate court found that SORM did create fact issues regarding the extension of the injury to include depression. The court identified ample evidence of other potential stressors contributing to Baker's depression recurrence, such as marital issues, family illness, and a long history of recurrent major depressive disorder predating the work injury. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers CompensationDepressionMental HealthPreexisting ConditionDirected VerdictAppellate ReviewCausationMedical EvidenceTexas LawRelapse
References
7
Case No. 08-06-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2007

State Office of Risk Management v. Hector Escalante

The State Office of Risk Management (SORM) appealed a trial court's grant of a no-evidence summary judgment in favor of Hector Escalante. Escalante had suffered two work-related injuries and subsequently sought Supplemental Income Benefits (SIBS), which SORM disputed. Following administrative hearings, the Appeals Panel found Escalante qualified for SIBS for the disputed periods. SORM's appeal to the trial court was unsuccessful, leading to this current appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that SORM failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact against Escalante's qualification for SIBS.

Supplemental Income BenefitsSummary JudgmentImpairment RatingVocational RehabilitationCausationDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewNo-Evidence MotionTexas Labor CodeAdministrative Appeals
References
5
Case No. 11-07-00116-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2009

State Office of Risk Management v. Shawnae R. Foutz

The State Office of Risk Management (SORM) appealed a trial court's decision to sanction it for filing a frivolous lawsuit against Shawnae R. Foutz, who had suffered a compensable mental-trauma injury. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that SORM's lawsuit was groundless and filed in bad faith, upholding the imposition of sanctions. However, it reversed the specific $100,000 monetary sanction, remanding the case for a new hearing to determine an appropriate amount, as the original order lacked a basis for its calculation. The court also noted SORM's misrepresentation of expert testimony during the appeal and indicated a separate show cause order would be issued for this conduct.

Frivolous LawsuitSanctionsMental Trauma InjuryPTSDJudicial ReviewAppellate ProcedureAbuse of DiscretionRule 13Chapter 10Expert Testimony
References
15
Case No. 03-98-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1999

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Subsequent Injury Fund v. Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool

The Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool (Risk Pool) challenged the constitutionality of specific provisions within the Texas Workers' Compensation Act and related Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) rules. These provisions mandated contributions to the Subsequent Injury Fund, which the Risk Pool argued violated constitutional restrictions on political subdivisions lending credit or granting public money, and imposing state ad valorem property taxes. The trial court initially sided with the Risk Pool, declaring the requirements unconstitutional as applied to its members. On appeal, the Court of Appeals addressed the Risk Pool's standing and the core constitutional arguments. The appellate court characterized the mandatory contributions as analogous to a custodial escheat statute, where the state assumes custody of unclaimed death benefits rather than gaining absolute ownership. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the Risk Pool failed to meet its burden for an "as applied" constitutional challenge, notably by not asserting a limitations defense.

Workers' Compensation ActSubsequent Injury FundDeclaratory JudgmentConstitutional ChallengeAs-Applied ChallengeAssociational StandingAcceptance of Benefits DoctrineEscheat LawCustodial EscheatUnclaimed Death Benefits
References
18
Case No. 07-07-0288-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2009

State Office of Risk Management v. Rachel Leigh Herrera, Victoria Danielle Herrera, Matthew Ryen Herrera, Kelcey Mercedes Dena Herrera, Care'n Destiny Herrera, Beneficiaries of Jose Arturo Herrera, And Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool

The State Office of Risk Management (SORM) appealed the trial court's dismissal of its lawsuit seeking judicial review of an appeals panel decision, which found SORM responsible for paying death benefits to the beneficiaries of deceased police officer Jose Herrera. Officer Herrera died in the line of duty, and SORM denied liability, arguing he was employed by the City of Friona, a self-insured entity, not the State. The trial court dismissed SORM's suit because SORM failed to timely name the City of Friona as a defendant within the statutory 40-day period. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the City of Friona was an indispensable party and the 40-day limitations period was not tolled for misidentification of parties. The court also upheld the award of attorney's fees to certain Herrera defendants, deeming SORM's claims against them to be without foundation.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewInsurance Carrier LiabilitySubject Matter JurisdictionIndispensable PartyAttorney's FeesStatutory BeneficiariesMisidentification of PartiesAppellate Court DecisionTexas Labor Law
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 4,664 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