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. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. 04-10-00046-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2011

Rosa M. Martinez v. State Office of Risk Management

Rosa M. Martinez appealed a trial court's judgment that reversed a decision by the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel. Martinez was injured as a school custodian and the State Office of Risk Management challenged coverage. A contested case hearing found her injury compensable, including a herniated disc, and granted disability, which the Appeals Panel affirmed. SORM's subsequent suit in district court led to a reversal, based on a jury finding against Martinez. The appellate court found reversible error in the jury charge, which improperly combined the distinct issues of compensability and the extent of injury (herniated disc) into a single question, thereby prejudicing Martinez's right to a proper verdict on all issues and potentially affecting her eligibility for disability and attorney's fees. The judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationJury Charge ErrorCompensable InjuryExtent of InjuryHerniated DiscDisabilityAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewTrial Court ErrorReversible Error
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. District Attorney's Office of New York

Thomas Jones, currently incarcerated, filed an Article 78 proceeding to vacate the denial of his FOIL request by the District Attorney’s Office of the County of New York (DANY). Jones sought a trial verdict sheet from his 2000 conviction for conspiracy and assault. DANY denied the request, stating Judiciary Law § 255, which Jones cited, applies only to court clerks, not district attorneys. The court affirmed DANY's denial, ruling that district attorneys are not clerks of the court, and also found Jones's claims to be time-barred under the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. The petition was consequently denied and dismissed with prejudice.

FOIL RequestVerdict SheetArticle 78 ProceedingStatute of LimitationsDistrict AttorneyCourt ClerkJudiciary LawPenal LawCriminal ConspiracyAssault
References
3
Case No. 03-21-00120-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2022

Brian Manley, Chief of Austin Police Department Brian Manley, Individually Commander Mark Spangler, Austin Police Department Lt. Jerry Bauzon, Austin Police Department Officer Benjamin Bloodworth, Austin Police Department Officer Collin Fallon, Austin Police Department Sgt. Eric Kilcollins, Training Coordinator, Austin Police Academy And Officer Shand, Lead Instructor, Stress Reaction Training, Austin Police Academy v. Christopher Wise

Christopher Wise, a former Austin Police Academy cadet, sued Brian Manley (APD Chief) and six other APD officers after sustaining severe injuries, including heat exhaustion and stroke, during a stress reaction training in October 2018. Wise alleged that officers intentionally discouraged cadets from hydrating despite high temperatures and failed to provide timely medical aid. The defendants sought dismissal under the Texas Tort Claims Act's election-of-remedies provisions. The district court dismissed claims against the City of Austin and APD but not against the individual officers. The appellate court reversed the district court's decision, ruling that Wise's claims against the individual officers were based on conduct within the scope of their employment and could have been brought under the TTCA, thus mandating their dismissal.

Texas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityElection of RemediesScope of EmploymentPolice MisconductCadet InjuryHeat IllnessSupervisor NegligenceAppellate CourtReversal
References
25
Case No. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

Gerard Matzen// Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office v. Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office// Cross-Appellee, Gerard Matzen

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
Case No. 14-07-01038-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2009

Erik Larsen v. Sante Fe Independent School District

Erik Larsen appealed a summary judgment granted to Santa Fe Independent School District (the District) in his lawsuit for retaliatory discharge. Larsen claimed he was terminated after filing a workers' compensation claim. The appeals court first addressed the District's contention that Larsen failed to exhaust administrative remedies, concluding that such exhaustion was not a jurisdictional prerequisite for his claim. However, on the merits of the summary judgment, the court affirmed the trial court's decision. It found that Larsen failed to present evidence that the District's neutral absence control policy was not uniformly enforced, thereby failing to controvert the District's legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for his termination.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimSummary Judgment AppealAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionAt-Will EmploymentSchool District PolicyAbsence Control PolicyTexas Labor CodeTexas Education CodeFMLA
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larsen v. Santa Fe Independent School District

Erik Larsen, an at-will police officer for Santa Fe Independent School District, was injured in a work-related training exercise and filed a workers' compensation claim. He was subsequently terminated due to exhausting all available leave and inability to return to work, prompting him to sue the District for retaliatory discharge under the Texas Labor Code. The District argued that Larsen failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that his termination was a neutral application of its absence control policy. The court found that Larsen was not required to exhaust administrative remedies as Chapter 451 of the Texas Labor Code does not impose such a requirement, nor do other applicable education statutes for at-will employees. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the District, concluding that Larsen failed to demonstrate that the absence control policy was applied disparately to similarly situated employees.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimAt-Will EmploymentAdministrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrineSubject Matter JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAbsence Control PolicyTexas Labor CodeSchool District Employee
References
53
Case No. 03-18-00243-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2018

Leander Independent School District v. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas

Leander Independent School District (LISD) appealed a district court's judgment compelling the disclosure of its "Complaints Document" to a news reporter under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA). LISD argued the document was protected by exceptions including deliberative process, work product, constitutional and common law privacy, and litigation anticipation. The appellate court, reviewing de novo, determined the document contained purely factual information, not protected by deliberative process or work product privileges. It also found LISD failed to establish constitutional or common law privacy rights applied, or that litigation was reasonably anticipated. Consequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the requirement for LISD to release the information.

Public Information ActOpen Records RequestGovernment TransparencyDeliberative Process PrivilegeWork Product PrivilegeConstitutional PrivacyCommon Law PrivacyLitigation AnticipationSummary JudgmentDeclaratory Judgment
References
69
Case No. 03-01-00491-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District Coppell Independent School District La Porte Independent School District And Port Neches-Groves Independent School District v. Felipe Alanis, Texas Commissioner of Education The Texas Education Agency Carol Keeton Rylander, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts And the Texas State Board of Education Alvarado I.S.D. Anthony I.S.D. Aubrey I.S.D. Bangs I.S.D.

Four Texas school districts, led by West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District, appealed the dismissal of their action seeking a declaratory judgment that the state's school finance system is unconstitutional. The districts contended that the $1.50 tax cap had become a de facto floor, forcing them to tax at the maximum allowable rate to provide education, thereby constituting an unconstitutional state ad valorem tax. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the districts failed to state a viable cause of action because they did not allege they were forced to tax at the cap specifically to provide the constitutionally-mandated 'accredited education.' The court also found the claim unripe, emphasizing that the focus should be on whether the state's requirements forced a lack of meaningful discretion in setting tax rates for an accredited education, not on a desired level of education or the number of districts taxing at the cap.

School Finance ReformConstitutional ChallengeAd Valorem TaxationEducation FundingDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineTexas Constitution Article VII, Section 1Texas Constitution Article VIII, Section 1-eProperty Tax Cap
References
30
Case No. 03-17-00352-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2018

Vista Medical Center Hospital Vista Healthcare, Inc. And Surgery Specialty Hospital, Inc.// State Office of Risk Management v. State Office of Risk Management// Vista Medical Center Hospital Vista Healthcare, Inc. And Surgery Specialty Hospital, Inc.

This case involves cross-appeals stemming from a dispute over the appropriate reimbursement for medical services provided by Vista Medical Center Hospital and its affiliates to injured employees covered by the State Office of Risk Management (SORM) under Texas workers’ compensation statutes. The district court had affirmed 23 administrative orders that required SORM to make additional payments to Vista, a decision which SORM challenged on appeal citing insufficient evidence. Vista, in turn, cross-appealed the district court's denial of prejudgment interest. The appellate court found substantial evidence supported the administrative law judges' conclusion that SORM's original reimbursement model was unfair and unreasonable, and that Vista's proposed methodology was valid. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's judgment but modified it to include the prejudgment interest that Vista was statutorily entitled to.

Workers' CompensationMedical ReimbursementAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePrejudgment InterestTexas LawHealthcare ProvidersInsurance DisputesFee Guidelines
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 7,754 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