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. 03-03-00435-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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 1985

Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, Inc.

This memorandum and order addresses the certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class for numerous personal injury asbestos cases in the Eastern District of Texas. District Judge Robert M. Parker found that common "state of the art" issues regarding asbestos health risks and product defects predominated over individual concerns, making a class action superior for efficient resolution. The court denied a mandatory "limited fund" class under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) due to insufficient evidence of impending insolvency. The decision outlines a bifurcated trial plan: a class-wide phase for state of the art and punitive damages, followed by individual mini-trials for exposure and actual damages. The court also denied a motion for reconsideration and granted an interlocutory appeal, further appointing a Special Master to profile class claims for the jury.

Asbestos LitigationClass ActionRule 23(b)(3)Personal InjuryToxic TortProduct LiabilityPunitive DamagesState of the ArtJudicial EconomyEastern District of Texas
References
30
Case No. E2004-01216-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision

State v. David H.

The dissenting opinion by Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr. addresses the denial of appointed counsel in dependent and neglect proceedings involving parents David H. and Mary Ellen H. While concurring with the majority's legal principles on the right to counsel, the dissent argues that the parents' irresponsible actions and omissions justified the trial court's decisions to deny appointed counsel. The trial court, presided over by Judge Harris and Judge Davies, found the parents not indigent based on their income and lack of diligence in seeking legal representation. The dissenting judge concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and would have affirmed its decisions to deny the requests for appointed counsel.

dependent neglectindigencyright to counselaffidavit of indigencyabuse of discretionchild support obligationappellate reviewtrial court discretionprocedural due processattorney appointment
References
6
Case No. W1999-01293-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2001

Oliver Valentine

A twenty-one month old boy was removed from his parents’ home after the mother beat him, leaving bruises. After three and a half years of the parents failing to satisfy conditions in the child's plan of care, the Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate their parental rights. The Juvenile Court for Shelby County terminated the mother’s and father’s parental rights. The mother and father appealed, arguing that the Tennessee Constitution prohibits a non-attorney elected juvenile court judge from appointing a special judge to hear such a case, and that there was insufficient evidence for termination. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, finding the appointment of the special judge constitutional and clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of parental rights.

Parental Rights TerminationJuvenile Court AppealSpecial Judge ValidityDue ProcessTennessee ConstitutionChild NeglectFoster CarePermanency PlanChild AbuseJudicial Appointment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 1995

Johnson v. City of Port Arthur

Glenn C. Johnson, a former employee of the City of Port Arthur, sought in forma pauperis status and appointment of counsel for a proposed ADA suit against his ex-employer after being terminated due to a disability. He suffered rhabdomy-dosis and could no longer perform strenuous tasks, leading to his termination. The City claimed inability to accommodate due to a lack of light-duty positions and budget cuts. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the in forma pauperis motion due to Johnson's financial hardship and diligent efforts to secure counsel, but denying appointment of counsel, finding his ADA claim lacked a substantial probability of success. The Magistrate Judge reasoned that changing a laborer to light-duty was not a 'reasonable accommodation' under the ADA. The District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, granting in forma pauperis status, denying appointment of counsel, and allowing Johnson until July 31, 1995, to file his Title VII complaint.

ADAAmericans With Disabilities ActIn Forma PauperisAppointment of CounselDisability DiscriminationEmployment LawReasonable AccommodationUndue HardshipEEOCMagistrate Judge Report
References
21
Case No. 01-15-00583-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2015

the Honorable Mark Henry, County Judge of Galveston County v. the Honorable Lonnie Cox, Judge of the 56th District Court of Galveston County

This interlocutory appeal concerns a temporary injunction obtained by District Court Judge Lonnie Cox on behalf of Ms. Bonita Quiroga against County Judge Mark Henry of Galveston County. The injunction directed Judge Henry to reinstate Ms. Quiroga's employment as court administrator with a salary of $113,000. The core dispute is over the salary range for the court administrator position, with Judge Cox proposing $85,000-$120,000 and the Commissioners Court setting it at $57,705-$63,695 due to decreased responsibilities. The Appellant argues that new amendments to Section 75.401 of the Government Code, effective September 1, 2015, render the temporary injunction moot. The new statute grants exclusive power to the judges served to appoint the court administrator and to the Commissioners Court to set the salary range, nullifying the injunction's directives. Therefore, the Appellant requests the Court of Appeals to set aside the temporary injunction and dismiss the underlying injunction suit.

Interlocutory AppealTemporary InjunctionMootnessGovernment CodeCourt AdministratorSalary DisputeGalveston CountyCommissioners CourtAppellate ProcedureDismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union Appointed Trustees of the Tapers Industry Insurance & Annuity Funds v. Employer-Appointed Trustees of the Tapers Industry Insurance & Annuity Funds

A dispute arose between the Employer-Appointed Trustees and Union-Appointed Trustees of the Tapers Industry Insurance and Annuity Funds concerning delinquent employer contributions. An arbitrator issued an award, which the Employer-Appointed Trustees sought to confirm and the Union-Appointed Trustees cross-moved to vacate. Judge Walker of the District Court reviewed the arbitration award, noting the arbitrator based his findings on prior judicial decisions rather than independently interpreting the collective bargaining agreement. The Court determined that the arbitrator failed to apply the contract as bargained for by the parties, thus exceeding his authority. Consequently, the Court vacated the arbitration award and remanded the dispute for proceedings consistent with its order.

Arbitration AwardVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementTrust FundsDelinquent ContributionsRes JudicataManifest Disregard of LawScope of Judicial ReviewLabor Dispute
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2007

In Re Guerra

Juan Angel Guerra, the District Attorney of Willacy County (relator), filed an original application for a writ of mandamus to challenge an order by Judge Migdalia Lopez (respondent). The order appointed Gustavo Garza as attorney pro tem to investigate the relator's conduct based on concerns raised by the Willacy County Grand Jury. Relator alleged that Judge Lopez exceeded her authority and abused her discretion in appointing Garza due to a conflict of interest, lack of notice, and the appointment of an incompetent individual. The court conditionally granted mandamus relief to vacate Garza's appointment due to his conflict of interest and potential role as a witness, but denied relator's motions for contempt and sanctions against respondent and Garza.

Writ of MandamusJudicial DiscretionAttorney Pro Tem AppointmentProsecutorial DisqualificationConflict of InterestGrand Jury InvestigationDistrict Attorney ConductDue Process RightsJudicial AuthorityPublic Office Incompatibility
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reado v. Texas General Land Office

Plaintiff, a former employee of the Texas General Land Office, filed a lawsuit alleging race and age discrimination under Title VII and the ADEA following his termination. He also sought to proceed in forma pauperis and requested appointment of counsel. Magistrate Judge Earl S. Hines recommended granting the in forma pauperis motion but denying the request for counsel. After plaintiff objected, District Judge Cobb conducted a de novo review, overruled the objections, adopted the magistrate judge's report, and consequently granted the in forma pauperis motion while denying the motion for appointment of counsel.

Employment DiscriminationAge Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)Title VII Civil Rights ActIn Forma Pauperis MotionAppointment of Counsel DenialMagistrate Judge RecommendationDe Novo ReviewObjections OverruledDiscretionary Appointment of CounselSufficiency of Evidence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 1994

Tatum v. Community Bank

Brenda Tatum, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for in forma pauperis status and appointment of counsel in a proposed Title VII racial discrimination suit against her former employer, Community Bank. Magistrate Judge Earl S. Hines recommended granting in forma pauperis but denying counsel, citing a lack of a meritorious claim despite Tatum establishing a prima facie case. Tatum filed objections, arguing that the employer's stated reasons for her termination were a pretext for racial discrimination. District Judge Joe J. Fisher conducted a de novo review, adopting the magistrate judge's report and overruling Tatum's objections. The court granted Tatum's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but denied her request for appointed counsel, concluding that her subjective beliefs and speculative allegations were insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success or prove discriminatory intent.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment LawTitle VIIIn Forma PauperisAppointment of CounselPro Se LitigantPrima Facie CasePretextDisparate TreatmentMagistrate Judge Report
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 11,531 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