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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshall v. Leavey

This case involves a petitioner's suit to review a Deputy Commissioner's finding of partial permanent disability and an order for the insurance carrier to pay compensation. The core issue is whether the Deputy Commissioner's findings regarding disability and wage-earning capacity are supported by substantial evidence. The court considered medical testimony from a neuro-surgeon, Dr. Harry Starr, detailing the petitioner's physical and emotional ailments and an estimated 20-25% medical disability. Testimony from the Texas Employment Commission on available light work and wages was also presented. The court ultimately affirmed the Deputy Commissioner's award, ruling that it was supported by substantial evidence, thus denying the petitioner's motion for summary judgment and granting those of the Deputy Commissioner and The Travelers Insurance Company.

Longshoremen's ActWorkers' CompensationPartial Permanent DisabilityWage-Earning CapacitySubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyNeuro-surgeryMental HealthAdministrative ReviewSummary Judgment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fowler v. Sheppeard

Jay Fowler, an employee of Todd Galveston Dry Docks, Inc., initiated a proceeding under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act to review a compensation award made by a Deputy Commissioner on August 17, 1944. Fowler contested the Deputy Commissioner's findings regarding his average weekly wage and annual earnings, claiming they lacked evidentiary support. District Judge KENNERLY reviewed the stenographic record, including stipulations concerning Fowler’s earnings and those of comparable employees, as outlined in Section 910, Title 33 U.S.C.A. The court concluded that the Deputy Commissioner's wage calculations were indeed unsupported by the evidence and stipulations. Consequently, the case was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for a new hearing and determination of Fowler's average weekly wage according to the statutory guidelines.

Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActWage DeterminationAverage Weekly WageCompensation AwardJudicial ReviewRemandEvidentiary SupportStipulation33 U.S.C.A. Section 910Employment Earnings
References
0
Case No. 15-25-00013-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2025

State of Texas, the Texas Facilities Commission, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Mike Novak, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the TFC, and Rolland Niles, in His Official Capacity as Deputy Executive Commissioner for the System Support Services Division of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Broadmoor Austin Associates, a Texas Joint Venture

Broadmoor Austin Associates leased office space to the Texas government, specifically the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), through the Texas Facilities Commission (TFC). Rent has been unpaid for nearly two years due to alleged misconduct by state officials. Broadmoor asserts that sovereign immunity does not bar its claims for breach of contract, citing Chapter 114's express waiver for contracts involving construction and related services. Additionally, Broadmoor brings ultra vires claims against TFC Executive Director Mike Novak and HHSC Deputy Executive Commissioner Roland Niles, alleging their actions were beyond legal authority or a failure to perform ministerial duties. Broadmoor seeks prospective injunctive and declaratory relief to ensure these officials comply with state law, specifically regarding the availability of appropriated funds for the lease.

Sovereign ImmunityBreach of ContractUltra Vires DoctrineState AgenciesGovernment ContractsLease AgreementsLegislative AppropriationsExecutive AuthorityJudicial ReviewTexas Facilities Commission
References
69
Case No. 15-25-00012-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2025

State of Texas, Acting by and Through the Texas Facilities Commission, for and on Behalf of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; The Texas Facilities Commission; Mike Novak, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Facilities Commission; The Texas Health and Human Services Commission; And Rolland Niles in His Official Capacity as Deputy Executive Commissioner for the System Support Services Division of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. 8317 Cross Park, LLC

This is an interlocutory appeal from a denial-in-part of Appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction. Appellee filed an action against the State of Texas, TFC, HHSC, Executive Director Mike Novak of TFC, and Deputy Executive Commissioner for System Support Services Division of HHSC Rolland Niles alleging causes of action for breach of lease, ultra vires conduct related to the termination of the lease, and declaratory relief. Appellants argue that the trial court erred in denying their plea because Chapter 114 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code does not waive sovereign immunity for the State of Texas, HHSC, or TFC for breach of lease claims, and the lease is not a contract for goods or services covered by Chapter 114. Furthermore, Appellants contend that the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) does not waive sovereign immunity for Appellee's declaratory judgment claim as it does not challenge the constitutionality or validity of a statute, and Appellee has not alleged a cognizable ultra vires claim against the state officials. Appellants seek reversal of the partial denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and dismissal of Appellee's claims.

Sovereign ImmunityBreach of LeaseDeclaratory JudgmentUltra ViresTexas Civil Practices and Remedies CodeTexas Government CodeAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionState AgenciesContract Law
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rockport Yacht & Supply Co., Inc. v. Hollis

This case involves an appeal from an award made by a Deputy Commissioner under the Federal Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act. James R. Nelson sustained a back injury while employed by Rockport Yacht & Supply Co., Inc. (RYSCO). After an initial state workmen's compensation claim, Nelson filed federal claims, leading to an award of total and permanent disability benefits by the Deputy Commissioner. RYSCO and its insurance carrier, Marine Office of America, appealed this award, seeking injunctive relief and a de novo trial, relying on the precedent of Crowell v. Benson. The Court considered whether the employer and carrier were entitled to a de novo trial on jurisdictional facts (employment and injury on navigable waters). The Court denied the request for a de novo hearing, noting that the Fifth Circuit has indicated the Crowell v. Benson doctrine is doubtful and that there was no conflicting testimony on the issue of injury on navigable waters. The court also addressed the issue of dual recovery, stating that any state compensation benefits must be credited against the federal award. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the Deputy Commissioner's findings, order, and award, concluding they were supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law, and granted the Deputy Commissioner's motion for summary judgment.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActDe Novo ReviewJurisdictional FactsAdmiralty JurisdictionWorkmen's CompensationDual RecoverySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFederal Compensation LawSubstantial Evidence
References
9
Case No. 04-13-00080-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2013

Nelson Wolff, County Judge of Bexar County Texas, Bexar County Commissioners Paul Elizondo, Tommy Adkisson, Sergio Chico Rodriguez and Kevin Wolff And Bexar County, Texas v. Deputy Constables Association of Bexar

The Deputy Constables Association of Bexar County sued Nelson Wolff, et al., alleging a violation of the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act for failing to engage in collective bargaining. The case originated from the trial court's denial of Wolff's plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. The central legal question on appeal was whether the Deputy Constables possessed the standing to collectively bargain under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 174, which restricts this right to "police officers" employed in a political subdivision's "police department." The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, analyzed relevant statutory definitions and precedent, distinguishing between the Sheriff's Office (considered a "police department" for the county) and the Constable's Office. Concluding that Deputy Constables are not employed by the "police department" or the Sheriff's Office, the court determined they do not meet the statutory definition of "police officer" and thus lack standing to pursue their claim. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and rendered judgment in favor of Wolff, dismissing the suit.

Collective BargainingStandingPolice OfficersLocal Government CodeBexar CountyConstable's OfficeSheriff's OfficeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPlea to Jurisdiction
References
15
Case No. No. 08-22-00029-CV (TC# 2021DCV1132)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2023

Ricardo A. Samaniego, in His Official Capacity as County Judge, Carlos Leon, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner, David Stout, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner, Illiana Holguin, in Her Official Capacity as County Commissioner, Carl L. Robinson, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner v. Associated General Contractors of Texas, Highway, Heavy, Utilities & Industrial Branch and a Brothers Milling, LLC

The El Paso County Commissioners Court, including County Judge Ricardo A. Samaniego and Commissioners, appealed the denial of their plea to the jurisdiction. They were sued by Associated General Contractors of Texas and A Brothers Milling, LLC, who alleged the Commissioners Court acted ultra vires in setting prevailing wage rates for heavy-highway construction projects in El Paso County. The Appellants argued governmental immunity shielded them and that their wage determinations were final. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, concluding that the Appellees had sufficiently pleaded an ultra vires claim, which falls within the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction. The court clarified that ultra vires acts by public officials are not considered acts of the state and therefore are not subject to the finality clause.

Governmental ImmunityUltra Vires ActPrevailing Wage RatePublic WorksSubject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Government CodeStatutory InterpretationEl Paso County
References
16
Case No. 03-13-00560-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2015

Risk Management Strategies, Inc. v. Texas Workforce Commission Commissioner Andres Alcantar Commissioner Ronald G. Congleton And Commissioner Hope Andrade

Risk Management Strategies, Inc. (RMS) appealed a trial court's dismissal of its suit against the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) and its commissioners regarding a determination that caregivers were employees of bank trusts, not RMS, for unemployment tax purposes. RMS sought judicial review of the TWC's decision and alleged ultra vires acts by the commissioners for misinterpreting the Texas Labor Code. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the judicial review claim, ruling that the statutory waiver of immunity applied only to unemployment benefits disputes, not tax liability. However, the court reversed and remanded the ultra vires claims, finding that while the commissioners were not solely bound by a 'control test,' RMS should have an opportunity to amend pleadings to demonstrate a specific statutory violation or lack of legal authority. The case was affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, allowing RMS to re-plead the ultra vires claims.

Unemployment Tax LiabilitySovereign ImmunityJudicial ReviewUltra Vires ClaimTexas Labor CodeEmployer-Employee RelationshipCaregiversBank TrustsStatutory ConstructionAppellate Procedure
References
19
Case No. 03-21-00294-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

Texas Telephone Association and Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative, Inc., and Their Participating Members Windstream Services, LLC Texas Windstream, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Windstream Communications Kerrville, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Valor Telecommunications of Texas, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications Southwest) Windstream Sugar Land LLC v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Peter Lake, Chairman Will McAdams, Commissioner Lori Cobos, Commissioner And Jimmy Glotfelty, Commissioner, Each in His or Her Official Capacity at the Public Utility Commission of Texas

This case involves a dispute over the Texas Universal Service Fund (TUSF), established to ensure affordable telecommunications services statewide. Rural telecommunication service providers (Rural Providers) sued the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) and its Commissioners when the PUC stopped paying full TUSF support amounts. The Rural Providers alleged ultra vires acts by the Commissioners for underfunding TUSF and creating a payment hierarchy, and violations of the APA for implementing these changes without proper rulemaking. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal, finding the Commissioners acted ultra vires and violated APA rulemaking procedures. The decision affirmed in part, reversed and rendered in part, and remanded in part for damages on a regulatory takings claim.

Texas Universal Service FundTelecommunications RegulationPublic Utility CommissionRural TelecommunicationsRegulatory TakingsUltra Vires ActAdministrative Procedure ActRulemaking ViolationDeclaratory JudgmentMandamus Relief
References
76
Case No. 59-354
Regular Panel Decision

Houston Ship Channel Stevedoring Co. v. Sheppeard

This case involves a proceeding in admiralty initiated by the Houston Ship Channel Stevedoring Company (libelant) to challenge a compensation award made by Deputy Commissioner G. Sheppeard. The award was in favor of William Bauer, an employee injured while working for the libelant, and covered compensation and medical expenses. The libelant argued it was a subcontractor and therefore not liable under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. However, District Judge Kennerly affirmed the deputy commissioner's award, ruling that the libelant was liable regardless of its contractor status. The court found the award to be in accordance with the law and saw no reason to remand the case for further proceedings.

Admiralty LawWorkers' Compensation ActEmployer LiabilitySubcontractor ResponsibilityAdministrative Award ReviewFederal JurisdictionMaritime InjuryInsurance InsolvencyDeputy Commissioner DecisionLongshoremen's Compensation
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,161 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