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

Tjfa, L.P. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc.

Justice Diane M. Henson provides a concurring and dissenting opinion regarding the interpretation of a statutory service deadline. She agrees with the majority that the failure to effectuate service within the deadline set forth in subsection 361.321(c) of the health and safety code is not jurisdictional. However, she disagrees with the majority's conclusion that this service deadline is mandatory. Henson argues that the statutory service deadline is directory, meaning that dismissal is not required if the plaintiff demonstrates substantial compliance and the Commission is not prejudiced by the delay. She concludes that TJFA substantially complied with the deadline and that the Commission was not prejudiced, advocating for the reversal of the trial court’s dismissal and a remand for further proceedings.

Statutory InterpretationService of ProcessMandatory vs. DirectoryHealth and Safety CodeSovereign ImmunityDue DiligenceDismissalNotice RequirementAppellate ReviewProcedural Law
References
15
Case No. Cause Number 4301
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of T. M.

The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (DPRS) appealed a trial court judgment concerning the conservatorship of a child, T.M. The trial court had dismissed DPRS's petition to terminate parental rights or be appointed managing conservator, due to statutory deadlines under the Texas Family Code § 263.401, and instead appointed Josie Gonzales as sole managing conservator and T.M.'s parents as possessory conservators. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the statutory deadlines were mandatory and could not be extended by a Rule 11 agreement. The court also found no error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings or its refusal to terminate parental rights, concluding that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the conservatorship orders.

Child CustodyParental Rights TerminationTemporary Managing ConservatorshipStatutory DeadlinesTexas Family Code Section 263.401Rule 11 AgreementDismissal with PrejudiceAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceFactual Sufficiency of Evidence
References
10
Case No. 09-07-128 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2007

Michael Leigh Smith v. Gerald Hamilton, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sue Ann Hamilton, Matthew Garrison and Mark Garrison

Appellees Gerald Hamilton, Matthew Garrison, and Mark Garrison sued appellant Michael Leigh Smith for alleged medical malpractice. Smith filed a motion to dismiss challenging the timeliness of appellees' expert report. The trial court denied Smith's motion. On appeal, Smith argued that dismissal was mandatory because appellees failed to serve him with an expert report within the 120-day statutory deadline. The Court of Appeals rejected appellees' constitutional and waiver arguments, holding that the mandatory dismissal provisions of section 74.351 were constitutional and that Smith did not waive his right to seek dismissal. The court found that appellees failed to comply with the statutory deadline, requiring dismissal with prejudice. The trial court's order denying Smith's motion to dismiss was reversed, and judgment was rendered dismissing appellees' claims against Smith with prejudice.

Medical MalpracticeExpert ReportTimelinessDismissal with PrejudiceStatutory DeadlineDue Process ChallengeWaiver ArgumentHealth Care Liability ClaimTexas Court of AppealsAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. NO. 14-19-00969-CV; NO. 14-20-00078-CV; Trial Court Cause No. 2019-76841
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2020

Ruth R. Hughs, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Texas v. Neal Dikeman, Shawn Kelly, Roy, Eriksen, Jared Wissel, Scott Ford, Billy Pierce, Christina Ford, Charlie Stevens, and Neko Antoniou

Appellees, members and candidates of the Libertarian party, sued Ruth R. Hughs, the Secretary of State of Texas, challenging Texas Election Code section 141.041 and an associated advisory. They argued these provisions, which required a filing fee or signature petition by a specified deadline for convention-nominated candidates, placed an unconstitutional burden on minor-party candidates. The trial court initially granted a temporary injunction and denied Hughs's plea to the jurisdiction. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the temporary injunction in part, specifically regarding the advisory's premature deadline, but reversed the injunction concerning section 141.041. The appellate court found that Appellees failed to waive sovereign immunity for their constitutional challenge to the statute. The court clarified that the advisory exceeded its statutory authority by applying the requirements to candidates *seeking* nomination rather than only to those *nominated* by convention, thus upholding the injunction against the advisory's overreach while allowing the core statutory requirement to stand for properly nominated candidates.

Election LawBallot AccessTemporary InjunctionSovereign ImmunityUltra ViresTexas ConstitutionFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentMinor PartiesPolitical Candidates
References
69
Case No. 03-06-00208-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2008

Shelly Frank, as Beneficiary of Eric Frank v. Liberty Insurance Corporation

The dissenting opinion argues against the majority's interpretation of Texas Workers' Compensation Commission rules regarding notice for appellate deadlines. Justice Waldrop contends that Rule 102.5(a) merely dictates the sending of communications to both claimants and their lawyers, but does not define the start of appeal deadlines. He states that the Texas Labor Code section 410.202 and Rule 143.3 clearly establish that the 15-day appeal period commences upon the claimant's receipt of the hearing officer's decision. The dissent concludes that the appellant, Shelly Frank, failed to meet the statutory deadline as she personally received the decision, and therefore, the trial court's judgment should be affirmed.

Workers' Compensation AppealsNotice DeadlinesStatutory ConstructionAdministrative Rules InterpretationTexas Court of AppealsJudicial DeferenceClaimant RepresentationAppellate DeadlinesJurisdictional RequirementsLegal Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

James Walter Young v. Nashville Electric Service

This workers' compensation appeal addresses the jurisdictional nature of the fifteen-day deadline for filing a motion for review. The employee, James Walter Young, filed a motion for review of an Appeals Panel decision, which had affirmed the trial court's judgment, after the statutory deadline. His counsel cited relocation of their law office and absence as reasons for the delay. The employer, Nashville Electric Service, argued against waiver, asserting the deadline was jurisdictional. The Supreme Court affirmed that the fifteen-day limitation period under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6-225(e)(5)(B) is jurisdictional and cannot be waived or extended. Consequently, the employee's motion for review was dismissed as untimely.

Workers' CompensationMotion for ReviewJurisdictional DeadlineTimelinessStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawAppellate ProcedureDismissalWaiverDue Process
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heart Hospital IV, L.P. v. King

Charles A. King, an employee of Heart Hospital IV, L.P., was fired after failing a drug test and subsequently applied for unemployment benefits with the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). The TWC initially approved King's benefits but later reversed its decision, denying benefits and ordering repayment. King sought judicial review, first in Travis County and then refiling in Bastrop County, missing the statutory 14-day deadline for filing. Both the TWC and Heart Hospital filed pleas to the jurisdiction, asserting that King's failure to adhere to the deadline deprived the court of jurisdiction. The appellate court reversed the district court's denial of the TWC's plea, ruling that the 14-day filing deadline is a jurisdictional prerequisite and that King's non-compliance meant the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

Unemployment BenefitsJurisdictional PrerequisiteStatutory DeadlineJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawPlea to the JurisdictionEquitable TollingTexas Labor CodeTravis CountyBastrop County
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Linda Coleman v. Victoria County

This consolidated appeal addresses two post-foreclosure escheat claims by Victoria County for excess proceeds from tax foreclosure judgments against appellants Linda Coleman, et al. and Eugene De Los Santos, et al. Appellants argued that their constitutional due process rights were violated due to inadequate notice regarding their property seizure and the escheat claims, and that Texas Tax Code section 34.03 violates due process and the Takings Clause. The trial court initially granted Victoria County's escheat claims, finding appellants failed to petition for proceeds within the two-year statutory deadline and that no statutory exception existed for lack of notice. The appellate court reversed and remanded, agreeing with the appellants that the lack of statutory notice by the clerk, as required by Tax Code section 34.03(a), violated their procedural due process rights, thereby denying them a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Due ProcessEscheatTax ForeclosureExcess ProceedsNotice RequirementTexas Tax CodeConstitutional LawProperty RightsStatutory InterpretationReversal
References
19
Case No. ADJ6726149
Significant
Mar 22, 2018

Pedro Hernandez vs. Henkel Loctite Corporation, Zurich American Ins. Co., administrated by Zurich North America/Los Angeles

The Appeals Board held that a lien claimant's declaration filed on Monday, July 3, 2017, was timely because the statutory deadline of July 1, 2017 fell on a Saturday, extending the deadline to the next business day. The defendant's Petition for Reconsideration was therefore denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEN BANCPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantLabor Code Section 4903.05DeclarationTimely FilingEAMSDismissal NotationNext Business Day
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Ehlinger

This case concerns an appeal by New York Underwriters, a worker's compensation insurer, challenging an Industrial Accident Board (IAB) award of death benefits to the statutory beneficiaries of the deceased worker, Clarence G. Ehlinger. The insurer initially filed an appeal in district court, mistakenly naming the deceased worker as the sole defendant. After the statutory 20-day appeal period expired, an amended petition was filed correctly identifying the beneficiaries as defendants. The trial court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, a decision upheld by this court. The court ruled that the original petition naming the deceased was a nullity and did not confer jurisdiction over the beneficiaries, and the subsequent untimely amendment failed to cure this jurisdictional defect. The beneficiaries were thus entitled to stand on the IAB award.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionTimeliness of AppealIndustrial Accident BoardStatutory BeneficiariesMistaken IdentityParty MisnomerTexas LawAppellate ProcedureDeath Benefits
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 3,884 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