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. 03-11-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2014

State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC// Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor// State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Steering Committee

This case is an administrative appeal concerning a final order from the Public Utility Commission (PUC) that increased rates for Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, reviewed the district court's judgment on various regulatory and financial issues. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment on eight of twelve issues but reversed and remanded four issues back to the Commission for further proceedings. These reversed issues included the university discount, municipal franchise-fee expenses, the calculation of 'lead days' for the franchise-tax component of cash working capital, and the federal income-tax expense. The court's decision hinged on statutory interpretation and the application of regulatory standards in the context of utility ratemaking.

Electric Utility RegulationRate IncreaseAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Public Utility CommissionOncor Electric Delivery CompanyState Universities DiscountFranchise TaxFederal Income Tax ExpenseAutomated Metering Systems
References
110
Case No. 03-02-00246-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2004

Reliant Energy, Incorporated Office of Public Utility Counsel And Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities/Magic Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc. Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative, Inc. And City of Bryan v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Consumer Owned Power Systems City of Houston Texas Industrial Energy Consumers State of Texas And Constellation NewEnergy, Inc./Public Utility Commission of Texas And Reliant Energy, Incorporated

This case concerns appeals from a district court's judgment affirming a Public Utility Commission (PUC) final order that set cost-of-service rates for Reliant Energy, Inc.'s transmission and distribution utility (TDU). Appellants, including Reliant Energy, Office of Public Utility Counsel, and various consumer groups, challenged the PUC's decisions on rate base calculations, return on equity, and operational expenses. The district court had largely affirmed the PUC's order, finding only one aspect to be a prohibited advisory opinion. The Court of Appeals, Third District, At Austin, reversed the district court's judgment regarding the inclusion of $107.3 million for the interconnection of Merchant Plant 4, citing a lack of substantial evidence. In all other respects, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and remanded the Merchant Plant 4 issue to the Commission for further proceedings.

Utility RegulationElectricity RatesPublic Utility CommissionCost-of-ServiceRate BaseReturn on EquityConsolidated Tax SavingsTransmission and Distribution UtilityAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
38
Case No. 03-03-00428-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2005

Cities of Corpus Christi, Appellants//AEP Texas Central Company Public Utility Commission of Texas And Constellation New Energy, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas and AEP Texas Central Company, Appellees//Public Utility Commission of Texas Cities of Corpus Christi Office of Public Utility Counsel And Constellation NewEnergy, Inc.

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal regarding the Public Utility Commission's authority to order AEP Texas Central Company to refund excess earnings from accelerated recovery of stranded costs. The dissenting Justice agrees with the majority on affirming the Commission's decisions concerning member account balances and demand charges. However, the dissent strongly contends that the Commission possessed the authority to mandate these refunds prior to 2004, arguing the statutory scheme was ambiguous and the Commission's action was a reasonable interpretation consistent with its duties to promote fair competition and prevent overrecovery. The dissent highlights that the majority's interpretation may lead to absurd results by limiting the Commission's ability to correct overrecovery while allowing it to address underrecovery.

Electricity DeregulationStranded CostsUtility RegulationPublic Utility CommissionRegulatory AuthorityExcess EarningsRefundsCompetitive MarketTexas Utility CodeAdministrative Law
References
12
Case No. 03-14-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2015

CPS Energy, Time Warner Cable Texas LLC, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company D/B/A AT&T// Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas// Cross-Appellee, CPS Energy, Time Warner Cable Texas LLC and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company D/B/A AT&T

This brief argues that the Public Utility Commission (Commission) erroneously issued an advisory opinion concerning amendments to federal regulations (47 C.F.R. 1.1409(e)) that took effect after the relevant billing period of 2005-2010. CPS Energy contends that these findings were premature, advisory, and beyond the Commission's jurisdictional scope. Additionally, CPS Energy asserts that the Commission's interpretation of Utilities Code § 54.204(c) constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of power to a federal agency. The brief urges the Third Court of Appeals to reverse the Commission's contested findings (Findings of Fact 84-87 and Conclusions of Law 26 and 27) and remand the case for an order consistent with the court's opinion.

JurisdictionAdvisory OpinionPole Attachment RatesFederal Communications CommissionPublic Utility CommissionAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationUnconstitutional DelegationRipenessAppellate Procedure
References
84
Case No. 03-10-00430-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2012

Nucor Steel - Texas, a Division of Nucor Corporation v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Oncor Electric Delivery Company and Texas Energy Future Holdings Limited Partnership

Texas Energy Future Holdings Partnership (Texas Energy) sought to acquire Oncor Electric Delivery Company (Oncor), a regulated electric utility. The Public Utility Commission (Commission) approved the acquisition, determining it was in the public interest, a decision upheld by the district court. Nucor Steel - Texas (Nucor) appealed, challenging the Commission's statutory interpretation regarding the scope of its public-interest analysis and its evidentiary rulings. Nucor argued the Commission improperly limited evidence to only direct effects on Oncor and that the decision lacked substantial evidence. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, deferring to the Commission's reasonable interpretation of its authority in a deregulated electricity market and finding its evidentiary rulings and public-interest determination supported by substantial evidence.

Public Utility CommissionRegulatory AuthorityUtility AcquisitionPublic Interest AnalysisStatutory InterpretationDeregulation of Electricity MarketEvidentiary RulingsDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceStipulation Agreement
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raczka v. Nichter Utility Construction Co.

A plaintiff was severely injured when a hydraulic platform lift collapsed, causing him to fall during the installation of a traffic signal. He initiated an action against the general contractor, Nichter Utility Construction Company, Inc., citing a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Nichter, in turn, filed a third-party action against the plaintiff's employer, A.J.L. Electric Co., Inc., for indemnification. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, establishing that the injury resulted from a safety device's failure to provide adequate protection against an elevation-related risk. The appellate court affirmed this decision, rejecting the defendants' arguments that the plaintiff needed to prove the lift's malfunction cause or that his alleged negligence was the sole proximate cause of the injuries, deeming these contentions speculative.

Hydraulic lift accidentLabor Law 240(1)Elevation hazardSafety equipment failureSummary judgmentAppellate reviewGeneral contractor liabilityThird-party claimProximate causationWorkplace safety
References
7
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. 03-01-00195-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2001

Reliant Energy, Incorporated v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel And Steering Committees for the Cities Served by TXU Electric and Central Power and Light Company

This case involves a direct appeal where Reliant Energy, Incorporated (Appellant) challenged the Public Utility Commission of Texas's (the Commission) price-to-beat rules. Reliant argued that these rules failed to ensure an initial fuel factor above market costs and that the Commission erred in excluding Provider of Last Resort (POLR) customers from market share calculations. Additionally, Reliant contended that the Commission's rule 25.41 violated the reasoned justification requirement of the Texas Government Code. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, upheld the price-to-beat regulations, concluding that the Commission acted within its authorized powers, and its decisions regarding the fuel factor, POLR customers, and reasoned justification were valid and consistent with the legislative intent to balance fostering competition and providing customer rate reductions during the transition to a competitive electricity market.

Electricity MarketDeregulationPublic Utility CommissionPrice-to-Beat RulesFuel FactorRetail Electric ProvidersMarket CompetitionAdministrative LawReasoned JustificationStatutory Interpretation
References
55
Case No. 03-14-00735-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2015

Entergy Texas, Inc.// Office of Public Utility Counsel and Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas and Texas Industrial Energy Consumers// Office of Public Utility Counsel and Entergy Texas, Inc.

The Commission’s Order should be affirmed. The Commission reasonably interpreted its prior rate-case order, the Black-box Order, to authorize Entergy to book and amortize a regulatory asset for unrecovered Hurricane Rita reconstruction costs. The Black-box Order was ambiguous concerning the Rita Asset. That order was based on a “black box” settlement—one where only the amount of rates to be collected was set forth, not all of the individual components of a rate case. Because the Black-box Order did not explicitly state whether booking and amortizing the regulatory asset had been authorized, it was ambiguous. Courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of its prior, ambiguous order, and the evidence in the record supports the Commission’s decision. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision that $13 million should be added to Entergy’s storm reserve based on the expenses Entergy incurred to repair equipment after a severe ice storm in 1997. A prior Commission decision that faulted Entergy for poor service quality did not amount to a finding that Entergy could not include the repair costs in the insurance reserve amount. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision that Entergy failed to meet its burden to prove that predicted purchased-power capacity costs were known-and-measurable changes to the test-year data. The record supports the Commission’s decision that Entergy did not meet its burden of proving that requested changes were known and measurable. For example, Entergy based its arguments about purchasing capacity on the assumption that it would always purchase the maximum amount under new contracts. Entergy claimed that it would have more customers in the future. Not only is that speculative, but the utility failed to account for how additional customers would otherwise affect its recovery through rates. And Entergy’s arguments about transmission charges are controlled by numerous unknown variables used in a complex formula. The Commission’s test-year rule is created to avoid just such unknowns. Moreover, most of Entergy’s request for post-test-year changes to transmission costs were based on an agreement that was still waiting for approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That is patently not a “known” change. Because substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decisions, the Order should be affirmed.

Utility RegulationRate CasePublic Utility CommissionAppellate BriefHurricane Rita CostsRegulatory AssetStorm Damage ReservePurchased Power CapacityTransmission EqualizationAdministrative Law
References
24
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,932 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