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. 01-10-00752-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 2011

in Re Metropolitan Transit Authority

Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro), a self-insured employer, filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting the Court of Appeals to compel the trial court to set aside its order denying Metro's plea to the jurisdiction. The underlying case involves Sharon Wilson, a bus driver, who filed a workers' compensation claim after an accident. Metro disputed a foot injury claimed by Wilson. The Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) appeals panel reversed a hearing officer's decision, concluding that Metro waived its right to contest the compensability and extent of Wilson's foot injury. The district court denied Metro's plea to the jurisdiction, allowing consideration of the extent of Wilson's injury. The Court of Appeals denied Metro's petition for writ of mandamus, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as Wilson, being the prevailing party at the appeals panel, was not required to exhaust administrative remedies.

Writ of MandamusWorkers' CompensationPlea to the JurisdictionExhaustion of Administrative RemediesJurisdictionWaiver DoctrineCompensabilityExtent of InjuryAppeals Panel DecisionJudicial Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Straker v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

Carl B. Straker, a former NYCTA train operator, challenged his termination following a mandatory drug test, alleging he was unable to provide a urine sample due to a medical condition. His amended complaint cited procedural due process violations (Count I), racial discrimination and conspiracy (Count II), misrepresentation by NYCTA (Count III), and disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act (Count IV) against NYCTA, plus a breach of fair representation (Count V) against the Transit Workers Union. The court dismissed Count I, dismissed Count II with leave to amend, denied dismissal for Counts III and IV while demanding a more definite statement for Count III, and denied TWU’s motion to dismiss Count V, reinterpreting it as a state law claim. Metropolitan Transit Authority, though named, was dismissed as a party due to non-existence.

Employment DiscriminationProcedural Due ProcessRacial DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRehabilitation ActConspiracyDuty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintDrug Testing
References
52
Case No. 14-01-00903-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2002

Metropolitan Transit Authority v. Burks, Allen W.

This appeal concerns the denial of a motion to dismiss filed by Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) against Allen W. Burks (Burks), a former employee. Burks sued Metro after his termination and subsequent return to work, seeking restoration to pre-disciplinary status and compensation for economic loss. Metro argued the district court lacked jurisdiction because Burks failed to join the Transport Workers Union within the six-month limitations period mandated by federal labor law, framing the action as a 'hybrid' claim under LMRA. The court assumed Burks' claims implicated the collective bargaining agreement but held that an employee is not required to join the union as a party to the suit to prove a breach of the duty of fair representation against the employer. The judgment of the trial court, denying Metro's motion to dismiss, was affirmed.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementJurisdictionMotion to DismissLMRA PreemptionStatute of LimitationsHybrid ActionDuty of Fair RepresentationEmployee TerminationTexas Court of Appeals
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bexar Metropolitan Water District v. City of Bulverde

The City of Bulverde and the Guadalupe-Bianco River Authority (GBRA) sought declaratory judgments in Comal County District Court to determine the boundaries and service authority of Bexar Metropolitan Water District (BexarMet). BexarMet filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, which was denied. On appeal, BexarMet contended that the Texas Water Code prohibits challenges to its boundaries by third parties, Bulverde and GBRA lacked standing, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality had exclusive or primary jurisdiction, and GBRA did not qualify as a 'person' under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of BexarMet's plea to the jurisdiction, finding that Bulverde and GBRA were not challenging the validity of BexarMet's boundaries but rather seeking clarification of statutory meaning and authority, had standing as affected parties, and that the Commission did not have exclusive or primary jurisdiction over statutory interpretation. Furthermore, GBRA qualified as a 'person' under the UDJA.

Water RightsJurisdictionStatutory ConstructionDeclaratory ReliefPlea to JurisdictionStandingAdministrative LawGovernmental ImmunityWater DistrictsBoundary Disputes
References
38
Case No. 03-04-00367-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2004

Bexar Metropolitan Water District v. City of Bulverde, Texas Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority City of Boerne And City of Fair Oaks Ranch

Bexar Metropolitan Water District (BexarMet) appealed the district court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction. The underlying action involved the City of Bulverde and the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (GBRA) seeking declaratory judgments against BexarMet in Comal County District Court. These judgments concerned BexarMet's statutory boundaries and its authority to provide water utility services or expand its territory following a 2003 amendment to its enabling act. BexarMet contended that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that boundary contests could only be brought by the attorney general, that Bulverde and GBRA lacked standing, and that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality held exclusive or primary jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Bulverde and GBRA had standing under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act and that statutory interpretation, which was central to the case, was within the courts' jurisdiction, not exclusively or primarily with the Commission.

Water RightsWater District BoundariesDeclaratory JudgmentStandingSubject Matter JurisdictionStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of AppealsGovernmental ImmunityInterlocutory AppealPlea to the Jurisdiction
References
54
Case No. ADJ4295446 (GOL 0087464)
Regular
Mar 20, 2014

Virginia Landaw vs. Toyota of Santa Barbara, Public Service Mutual Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for removal, which sought to have hearings held at the Santa Barbara district office rather than Oxnard. The WCAB found that the relocation was necessary due to insufficient space at the Santa Barbara facility, impacting lobby, hearing room, and parking availability. The Board reaffirmed its authority to calendar hearings at different offices based on available resources and cited the applicant's minimal increased travel as insufficient grounds for removal. The WCAB also highlighted the availability of CourtCall and the ongoing efforts to secure a more suitable Santa Barbara location.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDivision of Workers' CompensationDistrict OfficeVenueCourtCallMandatory Settlement ConferenceExpedited HearingJudicial NoticeAdministrative Law Judge
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

Gilbert Flores, an employee of Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro), was denied differential benefits after a workplace injury because he did not meet the five-year service requirement. His union, TWU Local 260, declined to pursue a grievance on his behalf. After a federal lawsuit was dismissed, Flores filed in state court, alleging breach of contract and tort. The trial court granted summary judgment, ruling his claims were time-barred by the federal six-month statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed, holding that federal law applied as Flores' claims required interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement and resembled unfair labor practices, thereby preempting state law limitation periods.

Statute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractDuty of Fair RepresentationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsFederal PreemptionAppellate Affirmation
References
13
Case No. 03-04-00574-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2005

Bexar Metropolitan Water District v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, City of Bulverde and Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority

Bexar Metropolitan Water District appealed the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's approval of the City of Bulverde's application for a water utility service certificate. The central issue was whether a municipality could demonstrate the required financial, managerial, and technical capability through contracts with a river authority (Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority) rather than possessing those capabilities directly. An Administrative Law Judge initially recommended denying Bulverde's application, but the Commission rejected this, finding Bulverde capable through its contracts. The district court affirmed the Commission's order, which the Court of Appeals also affirmed, holding that the Commission acted within its authority and that there was substantial evidence to support its decision.

Water Utility ServiceCertificate of Public Convenience and NecessityEnvironmental RegulationInterlocal AgreementsMunicipal Water SupplyAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationTexas Water CodePublic Utility Regulation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ernest Mungia v. via Metropolitan Transit

Ernest Mungia (Applicant) obtained a default judgment against his former employer, VIA Metropolitan Transit (Defendant). Four years later, VIA filed a bill of review and a claim for declaratory relief to set aside the default judgment, citing improper service. The trial court granted VIA's motion for summary judgment, setting aside the default judgment and awarding attorney's fees to VIA under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA). Mungia appealed the award of attorney's fees. The appellate court, presided over by Chief Justice Catherine Stone, reversed the trial court's decision regarding attorney's fees. The court held that the declaratory judgment claim merely duplicated the issues already present in the bill of review, thus serving no purpose other than to obtain otherwise impermissible attorney's fees under the UDJA. The case was remanded for further proceedings concerning Mungia's original claims against VIA.

Declaratory Judgment ActAttorney's FeesDefault JudgmentBill of ReviewImproper ServicePersonal JurisdictionCollateral AttackAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentTexas Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Metropolitan Transit Authority v. Plessner

Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), a self-insured entity providing workers' compensation, filed a declaratory judgment action against attorneys Richard Plessner, Thomas B. Schlotzhauer, Samuel J. Miller, and William L. Lane. MTA sought a determination of its right to the entire subrogation interest in settlement proceeds from third-party claims made by its employees, after these employees had recovered workers’ compensation claims from MTA. The attorneys, who represented the employees in their third-party claims, withheld attorney's fees from MTA's subrogation interest, claiming entitlement under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307, sec. 6a. The trial court denied MTA's motion for summary judgment and granted the appellees' motions, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgments, holding that the legislative intent of Article 8307, sec. 6a was to compensate attorneys who performed the work, regardless of whether a lawsuit was formally filed.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationAttorney FeesDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationTexas LawThird-Party ClaimLegislative IntentInsurance Carrier
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 6,224 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