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

Texas Workforce Commission v. Olivas

Ms. Maria Elena Olivas, a former employee of the Texas Workforce Commission, filed a workers' compensation claim after developing injuries in March 2008. She was subsequently dismissed from employment in May 2009, leading her to file a suit against the Commission for retaliatory discharge. The Commission filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity and arguing that Section 311.034 of the Texas Government Code mandated an unequivocal waiver of immunity, which it claimed was absent in the anti-retaliation provisions of Chapter 451. The trial court denied the Commission's plea. On appeal, the Commission contended that Section 311.034 abrogated existing Texas Supreme Court precedent (*Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez*) that recognized a waiver of sovereign immunity for such claims against state agencies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that the State Applications Act (SAA) still provides a clear and unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity for retaliation claims against state agencies, and that neither Section 311.034 nor the *Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman* decision altered this established legal analysis.

Sovereign ImmunityRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewGovernment CodeLabor CodeLegislative WaiverState AgenciesStatutory Construction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Mexia v. Tooke

The City of Mexia contracted with J.E. Tooke and Sons for curbside collection, but later terminated the agreement citing budgetary constraints. Tooke sued the City for breach of contract, and the trial court denied the City's plea to jurisdiction and ruled in favor of Tooke. On appeal, the central question was whether section 51.075 of the Texas Local Government Code waives sovereign immunity for home-rule municipalities. The appellate court examined the statutory language and Supreme Court precedents on immunity waiver, concluding that the 'plead and be impleaded' language does not constitute a clear and unambiguous waiver. Furthermore, the court rejected arguments that the City waived immunity through partial performance or by acting in a proprietary capacity, as solid waste removal is a governmental function. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityHome-Rule MunicipalitiesWaiver of ImmunityBreach of ContractTexas Local Government CodeGovernmental FunctionsProprietary FunctionsPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richards v. Texas a & M University System

Justice Bill Vance concurs with the affirmation of the trial court's judgment of dismissal. Richards argued that the lack of a statute waiving sovereign immunity for Texas A & M University employees in workers' compensation retaliation suits, while such waivers exist for other state agencies, constitutes a denial of equal protection. Vance states that the court cannot legislate such a waiver and that any change to sovereign immunity must come from the legislature or the Supreme Court. Therefore, the trial court's dismissal due to intact sovereign immunity was correct.

Sovereign ImmunityWorkers' Compensation RetaliationEqual ProtectionLegislative AuthorityJudicial RestraintAppellate ReviewTexas LawState AgenciesDismissalJurisdiction
References
3
Case No. 08-10-00070-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2011

Texas Workforce Commission v. Maria Elena Olivas

The Texas Workforce Commission appealed the trial court’s denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a retaliatory discharge suit brought by its former employee, Maria Elena Olivas. Olivas claimed she was dismissed after filing a workers’ compensation claim. The Commission argued that sovereign immunity for such claims had not been 'clearly and unambiguously' waived by the Legislature, referencing Texas Government Code Section 311.034 and the Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman case. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, distinguishing Norman by noting that the State Applications Act (SAA) had not been amended since the controlling Fernandez decision, which established a clear waiver of sovereign immunity for state agencies under the SAA. The court also clarified that Section 311.034 did not alter the existing framework for analyzing legislative intent regarding waivers of sovereign immunity.

Retaliatory DischargeSovereign ImmunityWorkers' CompensationPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationGovernment Code 311.034Labor Code 451.001State Applications ActJudicial Precedent
References
4
Case No. 15-24-00116-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2025

Arnulfo Cortez, Jr.; Homero R. Balderas, Brian D. Nipper, Mark F. Van Rosendael and Bryan K. Hugghins v. Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; Gregory Stevens in His Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; And John Beauchamp, in His Official Capacity as Counsel for Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; And T.J. Vineyard, in His Official Capacity as Major for the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement

Appellants have neither identified a waiver of the Appellees’ sovereign immunity nor pled a cause of action to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the Court. Sovereign immunity protects state agencies and officers unless there is a clear waiver. Appellants' claims for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) are barred as administrative remedies were not exhausted, and they are not aggrieved by a final contested case decision. Similarly, claims under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) fail to waive sovereign immunity and seek impermissible relief challenging an unripe agency order. Appellants' ultra vires claims and mandamus requests are also barred because Appellees acted within their statutory authority in taking disciplinary actions and issuing a warning, and no ministerial duty to grant SOAH hearings for all Appellants exists. Therefore, the trial court properly granted Appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA)Ultra Vires ClaimsMandamus ReliefPeace Officer LicensureLaw Enforcement DisciplineTexas Courts of AppealsJudicial Review
References
38
Case No. 01-15-00004-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Nikki Sides Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Thomas Middleton v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

The trial court did not err in granting defendant’s plea to the jurisdiction. To maintain her suit against TDCJ, Plaintiff must plead a waiver of sovereign immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act, CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §101.002 et seq (“TTCA”). Plaintiff’s allegations here are insufficient to establish a waiver as a matter of law. This case is the result of inmate Middleton choosing to hang himself in the prison day room. There are no allegations that any employee of TDCJ was present or using property when the incident occurred. Further, the property utilized by Middleton, the handrail, privacy wall and hoodie, were not inherently dangerous, nor lacking a safety component. To state a claim for a negligent condition of property, or implicate a waiver. As a result, Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled a condition of property to implicate a waiver. When a plaintiff’s petition, on its face, does not implicate a waiver, a trial court need not allow the plaintiff to amend his petition, nor hold an evidentiary hearing to clarify the pleadings. Finally, the Texas Constitution does not waive sovereign immunity for tort claims.

Sovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunitySuicide in CustodyUse of PropertyCondition of PropertyPleading SufficiencyJurisdictional FactsOpen Courts DoctrineInmate Death
References
42
Case No. 03-05-00837-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2008

Diana Foster v. Texas Retirement System, Trustee for Texas Public Retired School Employees Group Insurance Program Aetna Life Insurance Company And Aetna Health Management, LLC

Diana Foster, a retired teacher, sued the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) and its insurance administrators, Aetna, after her claim for intravenous immune globulin infusion therapy (IVIG) was denied. She asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the insurance code, and deceptive trade practices, along with a request for declaratory judgment. The trial court granted appellees' pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice, citing sovereign immunity. Foster appealed, arguing her declaratory judgment claim was not barred, legislative immunity was waived, the administrative procedures act provided for judicial review, and Aetna was not protected by sovereign immunity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding that sovereign immunity applied to TRS and, by extension, to Aetna as its agent, and that Foster's claims did not fall under any exceptions for judicial review or waiver of immunity.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernment AgencyInsurance DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative Procedures ActAgency AdjudicationJudicial ReviewBreach of ContractDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingDeceptive Trade Practices Act
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

SPINDLETOP MHMR v. Doe

Spindletop MHMR, the appellant, filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity. Appellees had sued, alleging violations of both the Texas Tort Claims Act and Chapter 321 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. The court determined that Chapter 321 contains a clear and unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity, allowing suit against mental health facilities for violations. Furthermore, the court found the appellees' pleadings sufficiently alleged facts involving tangible items or a motor vehicle, potentially triggering a waiver of immunity under the Tort Claims Act. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny Spindletop MHMR's plea to the jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealTexas Tort Claims ActHealth and Safety CodeWaiver of ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityMental Health FacilityTort LiabilitySubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
12
Case No. 13-10-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2011

Reyes Urbina v. Designer Homes Co., Inc., Onesimo Martinez, Javier Villescas [Erroneously Sued as Javier Bilolescas or Billescas], Compass Bank and Gregory S. Kazen, in His Capacity Only as Substitute Trustee

Deborah K. Powell, a former employee of the Department of Aging and Disability Services, filed a workers' compensation retaliation suit after her employment was terminated following an on-the-job injury and subsequent workers' compensation claim. The Department appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity and arguing no clear waiver existed under the Texas Government Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, relying on established precedent from Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez which found an implicit yet clear waiver of sovereign immunity for workers' compensation retaliation claims within the State Applications Act. The court concluded that the subsequent enactment of Government Code section 311.034 did not negate this waiver, upholding the legislative intent to allow such suits against state agencies.

Workers' CompensationRetaliationSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionState AgencyTexas Labor CodeGovernment CodeWaiver of ImmunityAppellate ReviewStatutory Construction
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center v. Ward

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC) and University Medical Center (UMC) appealed the denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction in a medical malpractice suit. The suit was filed by Carita and Dustin Ward, whose stillborn child's death was attributed to alleged negligence involving a fetal heart rate monitor. The Wards contended that the death fell under the Texas Tort Claims Act's limited waiver of sovereign immunity due to the 'condition or use of tangible personal property,' specifically the monitor. The appellate court analyzed the Act's provisions and Supreme Court precedents, noting the narrowing interpretation of the waiver, particularly the deletion of 'some' before 'use' and 'condition' in the codified version. Ultimately, the court determined that the Wards' allegations concerned 'misuse of information and negligence by medical staff' ('failing to recognize and respond') rather than a direct causal link between the monitor's use and the injury. Consequently, the court found no waiver of sovereign immunity, reversed the trial court's order, granted the pleas to the jurisdiction, and dismissed the Wards' claims.

Medical MalpracticeSovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActWaiver of ImmunityFetal Heart Rate MonitorTangible Personal PropertyProximate CausePlea to JurisdictionStillbirthNegligence
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 1,668 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