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. 03-02-00089-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2003

Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. and Independent Review Incorporated v. State of Texas Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas And Jose Montemayor, Insurance Commissioner of Texas

Appellants Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. and Independent Review Incorporated appealed a trial court's judgment concerning the disclosure of certain records under the Public Information Act. The case originated from a request for information made to the Texas Department of Insurance related to appellants' applications for certification as Independent Review Organizations (IROs). The Attorney General had previously ruled that the requested information, including reviewer lists, contracts, and compensation, could not be withheld. Appellants argued that the information was 'confidential by law' and also excepted from disclosure under the commercial or financial information clause of the PIA. The appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that appellants failed to meet their burden to prove an exception to disclosure applied.

Public Information ActDisclosure of RecordsIndependent Review OrganizationsConfidentialityCommercial InformationFinancial InformationAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewInjunctive ReliefAdministrative Law
References
12
Case No. 03-01-00400-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann v. City of Round Rock Round Rock Development Review Board Frank Del Castillo, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board Terry Hagood, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board

Appellants Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann appealed the district court's judgment affirming the Round Rock Development Review Board's denial of their permit applications for seven outdoor advertising structures. The core issue was whether the structures qualified as 'signs' and were entitled to non-conforming use status under the City's ordinance, which became effective February 27, 1997. The Court of Appeals held that four of the structures were 'signs' due to having a surface capable of displaying text, despite not yet having advertising affixed, and were therefore entitled to non-conforming use. The court reversed and remanded the Board's decisions regarding these four structures. However, it affirmed the district court's judgment for the remaining three structures, which lacked such a surface, and also upheld the constitutionality of the City's sign ordinance against a takings claim.

ZoningOutdoor AdvertisingNon-conforming UsePermit DenialExtraterritorial JurisdictionAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationMunicipal OrdinanceTexas Court of AppealsProperty Rights
References
30
Case No. 11-06-00048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2006

Midland Central Appraisal District and Midland County Appraisal Review Board v. Plains Marketing, L.P., a Texas Limited Partnership, and Plains Marketing GP Inc., General Partner

This ad valorem tax suit involves Plains Marketing, L.P. appealing the tax assessment on its crude oil inventory accounts. The Midland Central Appraisal District and Midland County Appraisal Review Board challenged the trial court's jurisdiction, asserting that Plains failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The trial court denied their challenge. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Plains had sufficiently exhausted its administrative remedies because the exemption claim was thoroughly discussed and determined by the Appraisal Review Board, despite initial protest notice deficiencies. The core issue revolved around whether oil stored in tank farms for future delivery constituted taxable inventory or was exempt under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Property TaxAd ValoremAdministrative RemediesJurisdictionExhaustion DoctrineInterstate CommerceOil InventoryAppraisal Review BoardTexas LawAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. 14-17-00574-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2017

Pamela Johnson v. Texas Mutual Insurance Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation W. Ryan Brannan, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Workers' Compensation And Tiffany DuarteCapacity as Director of Div

Pamela Johnson, the appellant, attempted to appeal an order denying her motion to request judicial review under the substantial evidence rule. Earlier, her suit for de novo review of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel decision was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on February 2, 2017. Her subsequent motion, filed on May 8, 2017, was denied on June 8, 2017. She then filed a notice of appeal on June 29, 2017. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals determined that the denial of her motion was an interlocutory and unappealable order, lacking any statutory exception for appeal. Additionally, her notice of appeal was deemed untimely regarding the initial dismissal order from February 2, 2017. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionFinal JudgmentInterlocutory OrderTimelinessNotice of AppealSubstantial Evidence RuleScope of ReviewTexas Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Centerpoint Energy Entex v. Railroad Commission

This opinion addresses an appeal brought by CenterPoint Energy Entex concerning the Texas Railroad Commission's authority to conduct retroactive prudence reviews of gas charges passed through a purchased gas adjustment (PGA) clause and to order refunds. Entex also challenged whether such a review constitutes a 'ratemaking proceeding,' which would entitle the City of Tyler to expense reimbursement. The court affirmed the Commission's authority to conduct retroactive prudence reviews and order refunds, concluding it does not violate the filed rate doctrine or the rule against retroactive ratemaking. However, the court reversed the district court's decision regarding expense reimbursement, ruling that a prudence review is not a 'ratemaking proceeding' for the purpose of municipal expense recovery.

Utility RegulationGas UtilityPurchased Gas Adjustment ClausePGA ClauseRetroactive Prudence ReviewRatemaking ProceedingExpense ReimbursementTexas Railroad CommissionFiled Rate DoctrineRetroactive Ratemaking
References
69
Case No. 23-0273, 23-0950
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2025

Accident Fund Insurance Company of America and Texas Cotton Ginners' Trust v. Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation

Justice Young, joined by Justice Sullivan, concurs in the denial of two petitions for review, acknowledging their significant statutory-interpretation questions and implications for the role of administrative agencies versus courts. The first petition (No. 23-0273) was a facial challenge by Accident Fund Insurance Company and Texas Cotton Ginners’ Trust against the Texas Department of Insurance regarding a rule on supplemental income benefits. The court found this challenge unsuitable as it presented no concrete example of the rule directly contravening the statute. The second petition (No. 23-0950) by Accident Fund General Insurance Company challenged lifetime income benefits awarded to Rodrigo Mendiola for severe burn injuries and loss of hand function. Accident Fund argued the lower courts used an outdated judicial standard instead of current statutory law. However, the court denied review because Mendiola's injuries qualified for benefits under both standards, rendering the choice between them non-outcome-determinative. Justice Young emphasized that this denial does not reflect a settled view on these issues, which may warrant review in future, more suitable cases with clearer records.

Workers' CompensationStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewPetition for ReviewSupplemental Income BenefitsLifetime Income BenefitsFacial ChallengeWorkers' Compensation ProgramSupreme Court of Texas
References
12
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01865 [170 AD3d 1349]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2019

Matter of Washington v. Human Tech.

Claimant Michael Washington appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. The first decision, filed August 10, 2017, disallowed his claim for workers' compensation benefits, ruling that his alleged injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, citing a lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in his reports. The second decision, filed November 15, 2017, denied his request for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed the appeal from the August 2017 decision as abandoned due to claimant's failure to timely perfect it. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the November 2017 decision, finding no abuse of discretion as the claimant failed to demonstrate newly discovered evidence, a material change in condition, or that the Board improperly failed to consider issues raised in his application for review.

Workers' Compensation ClaimInjury Not Arising from EmploymentCredibility DisputeNotice of InjuryFalsified DocumentAdministrative ReviewAppeal AbandonedDenial of ReconsiderationAbuse of Discretion ReviewAppellate Division
References
6
Case No. 2017-05-0225
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2017

Glasgow, Jack v. 31W insulation Co Inc.

Jack Glasgow, an employee of 31W Insulation Co. Inc., sustained a head injury from a fall at a construction site. His claim for workers' compensation benefits was denied by his employer and their insurer, Liberty Mutual, who asserted willful misconduct or failure to use a safety device as a bar to recovery. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims, presided over by Judge Dale Tipps, conducted an Expedited Hearing to address the compensability of the injury. The Court determined that while Mr. Glasgow had actual notice of safety rules and understood the dangers, 31W failed to demonstrate bona fide enforcement of its rules, particularly in light of a prior similar incident involving Mr. Glasgow where no disciplinary action was taken. Consequently, the Court granted Mr. Glasgow medical benefits and temporary total disability benefits for the period of January 11, 2017, through February 3, 2017.

Workers' CompensationFall AccidentHead InjuryWillful Misconduct DefenseSafety ProtocolEmployer LiabilityMedical TreatmentTemporary Disability BenefitsExpedited HearingRule Enforcement
References
5
Case No. 2017-06-2295
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2018

Hathaway, Ann v. Delaware North Companies, Sportservice

Ann Hathaway sustained a right shoulder injury while working for Delaware North in February 2015, receiving initial treatment from Dr. Calvin Dyer who diagnosed impingement and bursitis and released her to full duty. Despite continued pain, Hathaway did not seek further treatment until April 2017, when an MRI revealed a torn rotator cuff, leading to surgery paid for by her private insurance. Delaware North declined to cover the surgery, asserting the statute of limitations had expired, as their last voluntary medical payment was in December 2015, and Hathaway filed her petition in December 2017. The Court denied her request for medical and temporary disability benefits, ruling that neither her lack of knowledge regarding the statute of limitations nor the discovery rule served to extend the claim-filing deadline for her acute injury. Consequently, the Court determined she was unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the merits.

Statute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationMedical BenefitsShoulder InjuryRotator CuffExpedited HearingDenial of BenefitsDiscovery RuleVoluntary PaymentsTimeliness
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TXU Generation Co. v. Public Utility Commission

The Texas Court of Appeals, Austin, reviewed a direct appeal challenging the Public Utility Commission's Wholesale Market Oversight (WMO) Rule. Appellants, a group of market participants, argued the rule exceeded the Commission's statutory authority, was unconstitutionally vague, constituted an unconstitutional taking, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) regarding notice and concise statement of authority. The court, led by Justice Bea Ann Smith, affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule. It held that the Commission possessed broad authority under PURA to regulate the wholesale electricity market to protect public interest, consumers, and ensure reasonably priced ancillary services, even if some prohibited conduct was unintentional. The court also found the rule provided sufficient notice and did not invite arbitrary enforcement, nor did it constitute an unconstitutional taking or violate APA procedures. Ultimately, the court affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule, concluding that it reasonably promotes competition and fulfills legislative goals for the electricity market.

Electricity RegulationWholesale Energy MarketPublic Utility CommissionAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationConstitutional ChallengesMarket Power AbuseConsumer ProtectionTexas LawDirect Appeal
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 15,765 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