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. 03-03-00550-CV; 03-03-00551-CV; 03-03-00553-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2005

City of San Antonio, Texas Acting by and Through the City Public Service Board of San Antonio v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

The Texas Court of Appeals considered the Public Utility Commission's rule 25.93 regarding the confidentiality of competitively sensitive information submitted by municipal utilities. Appellants, a group of cities, challenged subsections (c)(2) and (g)(3) of rule 25.93, arguing they exceeded the Commission's statutory authority and conflicted with the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) section 552.133. This TPIA section allows public power utilities to designate information as "competitive matter," making it presumptively exempt from disclosure, with only the attorney general or a court empowered to override this protection under narrow grounds. The court agreed with the appellants, holding that rule 25.93, as written, would improperly permit the Commission to unilaterally determine the validity of confidentiality claims, thereby contravening its duties under the utilities code and the TPIA. The decision reversed and remanded the case, declaring subsections (c)(2) and (g)(3) of rule 25.93 invalid.

Public Utility CommissionCompetitive InformationTexas Public Information ActRule ValidityStatutory AuthorityConfidentialityMunicipal UtilitiesElectricity MarketAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
25
Case No. 03-92677
Regular Panel Decision

Enron Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.

Enron filed a motion for reargument under Bankruptcy Rule 9023, seeking reconsideration of a May 2, 2006 opinion that denied its motion to amend its complaint to add Lehman Brothers Japan, Inc. as a defendant. Enron argued that the court overlooked Lehman's misrepresentation regarding named defendants, which constituted concealment under Rule 15(c)(3). The court found that Enron had sufficient information to name Lehman Japan and that its reliance on Lehman's statement was not reasonable. The court also denied considering new arguments raised by Enron as they were not timely. Ultimately, the court denied Enron's request for relief under Rule 9023, concluding that no material facts were overlooked, new arguments were untimely, and no manifest injustice occurred.

Bankruptcy Rule 9023Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(c)(3)Relation-Back DoctrineAmendment of ComplaintMistake in IdentityConcealmentMisrepresentationReasonable RelianceEquitable TollingFraudulent Concealment
References
19
Case No. 03-03-00748-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2005

Edward Lambright, Richard Moore, Eric Kimball, Terry Ricks, and Calhoun County Shrimpers v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission

The Appellants, composed of shrimpers from Calhoun County, challenged rules adopted and amended by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPW) regarding shrimping season, nursery areas, and bycatch reduction devices. They argued that the rules lacked reasoned justification and were inconsistent with the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of TPW. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that TPW provided a reasoned justification for its rules, which were based on scientific evidence to prevent overfishing and promote efficiency in shrimp resource utilization, and that the rules were consistent with the SFMP.

RulemakingAdministrative LawEnvironmental RegulationFishery ManagementShrimp IndustryTexas LawStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentArbitrary and CapriciousReasoned Justification
References
28
Case No. 03-03-00606-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2004

Robert E. Williams, Timothy David Williams, Terry Wayne Tausch, Tommy Joe Robinson, Starley Eugene Shugart, and Charles J. Giammalva v. Texas Board of Orthotics and Prosthetics Donna S. Flippin, Individually and in Her Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Board of Orthotics and Prosthetics And Texas Department of Health

This case addresses the validity of rules established by the Texas State Board of Orthotics and Prosthetics regarding licensing exemptions under the 1997 Orthotics and Prosthetics Act. Appellants, orthotists practicing before the Act's passage, challenged the Board's denial of their licenses under 'grandfather' and 'unique qualifications' exemptions. The Board's rules required experience in manufacturing orthotic devices, which appellants contended was overly restrictive. The district court's summary judgment favoring the Board was reversed by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court ruled that the Board's definition of 'comprehensive orthotic care,' which included fabrication, contradicted the Act's intent to provide reasonable opportunities for already competent orthotists. Additionally, the 'unique qualifications' rule was deemed invalid for being redundant, as it imposed the same 'comprehensive orthotic care' standard, thus negating the distinct purpose of a second exemption pathway.

Orthotics and Prosthetics ActLicensing ExemptionsGrandfather ClauseUnique QualificationsAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationAgency AuthorityComprehensive Orthotic CareFabrication RequirementAppellate Review
References
54
Case No. 03-03-00355-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2004

Albert Hawkins, in His Capacity as Commissioner of Health & Human Services The Texas Health & Human Services Commission And the Texas Department of Health v. Dallas County Hospital District D/B/A Parkland Health and Hospital System

This case involves an appeal concerning the rules and formulas used to reimburse Texas teaching hospitals for graduate medical education (GME) costs from Medicaid funds. The core dispute is whether the Texas Health and Human Services Commission was legally mandated to use a specific statutory formula based on a hospital's annual actual GME costs, or if it could continue using its existing rule, which derived costs from a 1984 base-period figure adjusted for inflation, mirroring the federal Medicare approach. Dallas County Hospital District, operating Parkland Memorial Hospital, sued the department, alleging underpayment of over $72 million due to the use of the incorrect formula. The district court ruled in favor of Parkland, declaring the department's rules invalid. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the statutory formula for reimbursement was mandatory, while the department's discretion was limited to calculating variables within that prescribed formula, not to establishing an alternative method.

Medicaid reimbursementGraduate Medical EducationTeaching HospitalsStatutory interpretationTexas Health and Human Services CommissionParkland Memorial HospitalHealthcare fundingAdministrative lawJudicial reviewHealth policy
References
13
Case No. 03-03-00435-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission/East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery And Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. v. East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery/Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case involves the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission's failure to establish fee guidelines for ambulatory surgical centers under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. East Side Surgical Center, Clinic for Special Surgery, and intervenor Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. (collectively "East Side") sued the Commission to invalidate certain default rules that applied when specific guidelines were absent. The district court declared one rule (133.304(i)) invalid and enjoined its enforcement, citing unlawful delegation of authority. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment regarding the rule's invalidity and dissolved the injunction, citing a Texas Supreme Court decision finding no unlawful delegation. The court affirmed that East Side was not entitled to its usual and customary fee in the absence of specific guidelines.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawDelegation of AuthorityRulemakingAmbulatory Surgical CentersJudicial ReviewInsurance CarrierFee GuidelinesFair and Reasonable RatesStatutory Interpretation
References
38
Case No. 03-03-00173-CV, GN100452
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2004

Michael King v. City of Austin, Texas

Michael King brings an interlocutory appeal challenging the district court's denial of his motion for class certification against the City of Austin. King, representing approximately 900 police officers, sought to recover base pay and lost benefits. The appellate court reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion in denying certification, focusing on the adequacy of representation and the predominance and superiority requirements under Rule 42 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The court found conflicting evidence regarding King's ability to adequately represent the class due to intra-class antagonism and King's limited active role in the litigation. Furthermore, individual issues related to the discovery rule predominated, and a class action was not deemed superior given previous successful individual suits by Austin police officers for similar claims. The appellate court affirmed the district court's order denying class certification.

Class ActionClass CertificationInterlocutory AppealAbuse of DiscretionAdequacy of RepresentationPredominanceSuperiorityTexas Rules of Civil Procedure 42Conflict of InterestStatute of Limitations
References
35
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. 03-03-00458-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2004

Anderson-Clayton Bros. Funeral Home, Inc. Restland of Dallas, Inc. Restland Funeral Home Singing Hills Funeral Home, Inc. Laurel Land Funeral Home of Forth Worth, Inc. Blue Bonnet Hills Funeral Home, Inc. And Blue Bonnet Hills Memorial Park, Inc. v. Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

This case addresses the Texas franchise tax treatment of earnings from out-of-state investments made by Texas prepaid funeral benefits trusts. The Appellants, a group of affiliated funeral homes (Anderson-Clayton), argued these earnings should be considered out-of-state receipts for franchise tax apportionment. The Comptroller of Public Accounts contended they were Texas receipts, leading to a higher tax bill for Anderson-Clayton. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Comptroller. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that the 'accounting methods' provision of the tax code did not dictate the sourcing of receipts, and under the 'location of the payor' rule, the Texas-domiciled trusts were deemed the payors, making the investment income Texas receipts.

Franchise TaxInvestment EarningsPrepaid Funeral TrustsTax ApportionmentTexas Tax CodeLocation of Payor RuleSummary JudgmentStatutory ConstructionAccounting MethodsEarned Surplus
References
82
Case No. 03-03-00627-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2005

Garry Ackerson v. Clarendon National Insurance Company

Appellant, injured on the job, filed a claim with the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission against his employer's insurance carrier, appellee. The Commission granted partial relief, but its Appeals Panel denied the appellant's request for review, ruling it was filed one day late, beyond the fifteen-day appeal deadline. The district court affirmed this decision. Appellant argued that the Commission's general rules for computing time periods should extend the five-day deemed receipt provision, thereby delaying the start of the fifteen-day appeals period by one day. The appellate court agreed with the appellant, finding that the Labor Day holiday should have extended the deemed receipt date, making the appeal timely. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAppeal DeadlineDeemed ReceiptStatutory InterpretationAdministrative RulesTexas LawLabor Day HolidayTimeliness of AppealInjured WorkerLiberal Construction
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 11,422 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