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. 14-18-00274-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2020

Dr. Louis Patino, D.C. Dr. Stephen Wilson, M.D. And Dr. Gary Craighead, D.C. v. Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers' Compensation Commissioner Cassandra J. Brown and Dr. Donald Patrick, in Their Official and Individual Capacities State Office of Administrative Hearings, Texas Chief Administrative Law Judge Cathleen Parsley in Her Official Capacity Tommy Broyles, in His Official Capacity The State of Texas And the Attorney General of the State of Texas

Three doctors, Patino, Wilson, and Craighead, appealed the dismissal of their claims against the Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers’ Compensation and other state entities. The doctors were excluded from the state's workers' compensation approved doctor list between 2004 and 2007, leading to administrative penalties and a subsequent lawsuit. The trial court dismissed their claims for lack of jurisdiction, asserting immunity. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims challenging final agency orders due to unexhausted administrative remedies and collateral attack immunity. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the doctors' constitutional challenges to the Workers’ Compensation Act and ultra vires claims against the Commissioner, concluding these claims were properly pleaded and not barred by sovereign immunity.

Physician ExclusionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsConstitutional ChallengeDue Process RightsProfessional LicensingGovernment RegulationTexas Labor Code
References
24
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. 03-97-00607-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 1998

Southwest Texas State University v. Ezekiel Enriquez

Ezekiel Enriquez sued Southwest Texas State University (SWT), alleging wrongful termination in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. SWT moved for summary judgment based on sovereign immunity, which the trial court denied. On interlocutory appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, addressed whether the legislature clearly and unambiguously waived sovereign immunity for state agencies under the Anti-Retaliation Law. Citing City of LaPorte v. Barfield and Texas Dep't of Health v. Ruiz, the court found that Chapter 501 of the Labor Code, pertaining to state agencies, lacked an election-of-remedies provision similar to that found in Chapter 504 for political subdivisions. Consequently, the court concluded there was no clear waiver of sovereign immunity for state agencies in anti-retaliation actions. The court vacated the trial court's order and dismissed the cause for lack of jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityWorkers' Compensation RetaliationState AgenciesJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationAppellate CourtTexas LawJurisdictionWrongful TerminationGovernmental Immunity
References
10
Case No. 03-00-00603-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2001

Daniel T. O'Dell v. Rick Perry, Governor of the State of Texas And John Cornyn, Attorney General for the State of Texas

Daniel T. O'Dell appealed from a trial court order that granted a plea to the jurisdiction filed by the appellees, Rick Perry, Governor of the State of Texas, and John Cornyn, Attorney General for the State of Texas. O'Dell's complaint was vague but appeared to allege a breach of contract related to electrical generator installation or repair in state-owned buildings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, citing the State's sovereign immunity which protects it from lawsuits for damages unless waived. The court noted that an administrative procedure established by the legislature is the exclusive method for resolving such breach of contract claims against the State. Additionally, the court addressed O'Dell's complaints regarding a jury trial and a worker's compensation issue, finding no error.

Breach of ContractSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ProcedureState GovernmentTexas LawJury TrialWorker's Compensation IssueGovernment CodeLabor Code
References
12
Case No. 13-10-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2011

Department of Aging and Disability Services, a Texas State Agency v. Deborah K. Powell

The Department of Aging and Disability Services appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in Deborah K. Powell's workers' compensation retaliation case. Powell, a former food-service worker, alleged she was terminated in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim after an on-the-job injury. The Department argued that its sovereign immunity had not been clearly and unambiguously waived, citing Texas Government Code Ann. § 311.034. The appellate court reviewed the plea to the jurisdiction de novo and relied on the Texas Supreme Court's precedent in Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez, which held that the State Applications Act (SAA) contained a waiver of sovereign immunity for such claims. The court found that legislative intent to waive immunity for workers' compensation retaliation claims remained clear and unambiguous despite the later enactment of § 311.034. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of the Department's plea to the jurisdiction, concluding that the Department, as a state agency, is not immune from claims of workers' compensation retaliation.

Sovereign immunityPlea to the jurisdictionWorkers' compensation retaliationState Applications ActGovernmental immunity waiverLegislative intentAppellate reviewTexas Labor CodeTexas Government CodeInterlocutory appeal
References
8
Case No. 03-04-00632-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2006

State of Texas v. Precision Solar Controls, Inc.

The State of Texas, representing TxDOT, sued Precision Solar Controls, Inc., for breach of contract and warranty regarding allegedly defective traffic signals. Precision Solar filed a counterclaim for business disparagement, asserting the State waived sovereign immunity by initiating the suit. The trial court denied the State's plea to the jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed, holding that by filing suit, the State waives its sovereign immunity against germane counterclaims, even if they are intentional torts, as the core facts concerning the signals' quality and warranty performance are common to both claims.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityWaiver of ImmunityCounterclaimsBusiness DisparagementBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
31
Case No. 03-03-00430-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2004

State of Texas v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland and Colonial American Casualty and Surety Company

The State of Texas sued Fidelity (a surety) after a construction company defaulted on a contract with the Texas Department of Transportation. Fidelity counterclaimed for additional costs. The State filed a plea to the jurisdiction, citing sovereign immunity and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court denied the State's plea. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the State waived sovereign immunity by initiating the lawsuit for germane counterclaims, and Fidelity was not statutorily required to exhaust administrative remedies because the contract for a research and technology center was not covered by the transportation code's definition of "highway projects."

Sovereign ImmunityWaiver of ImmunityGovernment ContractsPerformance BondSurety ClaimsCounterclaimsAdministrative RemediesStatutory InterpretationEjusdem GenerisJurisdiction
References
31
Case No. No. 16-0647
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2018

State v. Paul Reed Harper

This case addresses the applicability of the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) to a petition for the removal of a county official, Paul Reed Harper, and the scope of sovereign immunity for attorney's fees. George Best initiated the removal suit against Harper for alleged incompetency and official misconduct, which the State of Texas subsequently joined. The Supreme Court of Texas determined that removal petitions are generally 'legal actions' under the TCPA, allowing defendants to seek expedited dismissal. However, it clarified that the TCPA's 'enforcement action' exemption applies to allegations of unlawful conduct, specifically Harper's alleged violation of the Open Meetings Act, but not to claims of incompetency or violations of internal bylaws. Crucially, the Court held that sovereign immunity does not shield the State from liability for appellate costs and attorney's fees awarded under the TCPA when the State participates in such litigation, citing the TCPA's unique purpose in safeguarding constitutional rights.

Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA)Sovereign ImmunityCounty Officer RemovalOfficial MisconductIncompetencyFreedom of SpeechRight to PetitionOpen Meetings ActAppellate CostsAttorney's Fees
References
72
Case No. 03-00-00282-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2000

Gerald H. Laubach v. State Bar of Texas

Gerald H. Laubach appealed the district court's dismissal of his lawsuit against the State Bar of Texas. Laubach had sued the State Bar alleging improper handling of his grievance against an attorney and violations of disciplinary procedures, claiming damages from the misuse of tangible property related to his grievance. The State Bar asserted sovereign and statutory immunity, which the district court upheld. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the Texas Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity for claims involving the negligent use of information in documents. Furthermore, the court noted that the State Bar and its agents are explicitly granted absolute immunity from suit for actions taken in the course of their official duties under Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure Rule 15.11.

Sovereign ImmunityStatutory ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActGrievance ProcedureProfessional MisconductState Bar of TexasOrder of DismissalJudicial ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityTort Claim
References
12
Case No. 15-25-00023-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2025

The State of Texas v. Nonparty Patient No. 1, Nonparty Patient No. 2, Nonparty Patient No. 3, Nonparty Patient No. 4, Nonparty Patient No. 5, Nonparty Patient No. 6, Nonparty Patient No. 7, and Nonparty Patient No. 8, Nonparty Patient No. 9, Nonparty Patient No. 10, and Nonparty Patient No. 11

This case involves an appeal by the State of Texas against the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and plea in abatement. The State, as appellant, initially sued Dr. May C. Lau in Collin County, alleging violations of SB 14 and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and issued subpoenas in Dallas County to obtain medical records of 21 nonparty patients. The appellees, eleven nonparty patients, challenged these subpoenas in Dallas County, asserting physician-patient and mental health information privileges under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 176.6(e) and 192.6(a). The State argues that sovereign immunity prevents the Dallas County court from hearing these challenges and that the only proper forum is Collin County. The appellees contend that the Texas Supreme Court precedent dictates that rules of civil procedure apply to the State unless explicitly carved out, and that common law principles of sovereign immunity do not extend to discovery disputes.

Sovereign ImmunityDiscovery DisputeSubpoena ChallengeMedical RecordsPatient PrivilegeMental Health PrivilegeRules of Civil ProcedureRules of EvidenceAppellate LawPlea to Jurisdiction
References
191
Showing 1-10 of 12,547 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