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. 13-08-00269-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2009

Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division, Nueces County Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Nueces County Community Supervision and Corrections, and Nueces County Adult Probation Department

Appellants Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero appealed the trial court's grant of a plea to the jurisdiction in favor of appellees, including the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Nueces County entities. Appellants alleged federal civil rights violations and torts under the Texas Tort Claims Act, stemming from sexual harassment and assault during their incarceration. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the federal civil rights claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, determining that the appellees were state entities immune from such suits, and found claims for injunctive relief moot as appellants were no longer incarcerated. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act, remanding for further proceedings to allow discovery and amendment of pleadings regarding allegations of premise defect and the use of tangible personal property, consistent with prior rulings.

Plea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActFederal Civil RightsSection 1983Premise DefectTangible Personal PropertyNegligent Hiring and SupervisionSexual MisconductIncarceration Conditions
References
15
Case No. 03-14-00726-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2014

Texas San Marcos Treatment Center, L.P. D/B/A San Marcos Treatment Center v. Veronica Payton

Texas San Marcos Treatment Center appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss Veronica Payton's health care liability claim. Payton alleged negligence after being assaulted by a patient at the treatment center. The appellant argues that the expert report provided by Dr. William H. Reid is deficient, lacking factual support and specificity concerning the standard of care, its breach, and causation, as required by Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. The appellant asserts the trial court abused its discretion by finding the report adequate and requests dismissal of the claims.

Medical MalpracticeExpert ReportMotion to DismissAbuse of DiscretionStandard of CareBreach of DutyCausationHealth Care Liability ClaimPsychiatric FacilityEmployee Assault
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Michael RR.

Petitioner appealed a judgment which denied its application to continue retaining respondent, an individual previously found not responsible for murder by reason of mental disease, at an unsecure psychiatric facility, and instead directed his release under certain conditions. The respondent had been transferred to a nonsecure facility (Capital District Psychiatric Center) after an initial commitment to a secure facility in 1984. A jury in February 2001 found respondent still suffered from a mental illness but concluded that continued inpatient care was not essential. This Court affirmed the judgment, determining that the jury's verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, particularly given the 11-year gap since respondent's last violent acts and evidence suggesting confinement exacerbated his condition. The affirmance ensures respondent's release will be subject to court-ordered conditions including mandatory outpatient mental health treatment, medication compliance, approved housing, and prohibitions on substance abuse and firearms.

Mental IllnessDangerous Mental DisorderInvoluntary CommitmentPsychiatric TreatmentPatient Release ConditionsJury Verdict DeferenceWeight of Evidence ReviewCPL 330.20Mental Hygiene LawParanoid Schizophrenia
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hunt, Hopkins & Mitchell, Inc. D/B/A Hunt & Associates, Inc. v. Facility Insurance Corporation and Texas Department of Insurance

Hunt, an insurance agent for workers' compensation policies, appealed two summary judgments granted in favor of Facility Insurance Corporation and the Texas Department of Insurance. Hunt sought additional commissions on premiums recovered by the Facility through a settlement with Mobley Industrial Painters, Inc. The core dispute was whether TDI's Rules and Regulations entitled Hunt to commissions on funds obtained via collection actions. The district court found against Hunt, a decision upheld by the appellate court, which affirmed that Section XI of the Rules and Regulations does not mandate such commission payments. The appellate court also found no abuse of discretion in denying Hunt's request for a continuance.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CommissionsSummary Judgment AppealBreach of Contract ClaimDeclaratory JudgmentRegulatory InterpretationAccord and Satisfaction DefenseAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Agent Liability
References
10
Case No. 03-01-00609-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2002

Hunt, Hopkins & Mitchell, Inc. D/B/A Hunt & Associates, Inc. v. Facility Insurance Corporation and Texas Department of Insurance

Hunt, an insurance agent, appealed two summary judgments granted in favor of Facility Insurance Corporation and the Texas Department of Insurance. Hunt sought additional commissions on workers' compensation premiums collected by Facility through a settlement with Mobley Industrial Painters, Inc. The district court denied Hunt's claim, stating that the Rules and Regulations only allowed commissions after a final audit and full payment of premiums, and that Hunt's argument of accord and satisfaction was not applicable. The appeals court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Hunt was not entitled to commissions on funds obtained through the settlement agreement. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying Hunt's request for a continuance of the summary judgment hearing.

Summary judgmentInsurance commissionsWorkers' compensationBreach of contractAccord and satisfactionThird-party beneficiaryRules and RegulationsProcedural HandbookAppellate reviewMotion for continuance
References
14
Case No. 2016-01-0546
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2017

Roper, Jeremiah v. Allegis Group

Jeremiah Roper, an Allegis Group employee, suffered a traumatic left-hand amputation during a work-related accident, leading to multiple surgeries and a sepsis infection. He subsequently experienced severe phantom and neuropathic pain, which he attempted to self-medicate with illegal drugs, resulting in substance abuse issues. After being referred to a pain management specialist, Dr. Joe Browder, Mr. Roper was refused further treatment due to a positive drug screen. The Court, recognizing the potential for substance abuse following a work injury, denied Mr. Roper's request for another pain management panel. Instead, it ordered Allegis Group to authorize and schedule Mr. Roper to see his authorized treating physician, Dr. Brian Tonne, on an expedited basis, to evaluate his current condition, pain management needs, and potential substance abuse problem.

Amputation InjuryPain ManagementSubstance AbuseMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingPhysician ReferralDrug ScreeningComplex Regional Pain SyndromeTreating PhysicianEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. 13-03-724-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2005

Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero v. Nueces County

Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero, inmates at the Nueces County Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF), sued Nueces County and two guards for sexual harassment and assault. They alleged civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and premises defects under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted Nueces County's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the claims against it. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that governmental immunity does not bar § 1983 claims and that the appellants sufficiently alleged a cause of action for premises defects by claiming the county's negligence in maintaining the facility (e.g., non-functioning cameras, unmonitored access areas) proximately caused their injuries. The court remanded the case for further proceedings, but required appellants to amend their pleadings regarding claims related to the 'use' of tangible personal property and negligent hiring/training/supervision to establish jurisdiction more clearly.

Civil RightsSexual HarassmentSexual AssaultGovernmental ImmunityPremises DefectsTexas Tort Claims Act42 U.S.C. 1983Subject Matter JurisdictionAppellate ReviewPleading Sufficiency
References
35
Case No. ADJ8979888
Regular
Jan 26, 2015

STEVEN DAVIS vs. CALIFORNIA SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY

This case concerns a lien claimant, CCPOA Benefit Trust Fund, seeking reconsideration of a Stipulated Award. The lien claimant argues its due process rights were violated because it was not served with the Stipulations, as required by Appeals Board Rule 10886, and liability for its lien was improperly transferred to the applicant. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and returned the matter to the trial level. This was due to the lack of evidence of proper service on the lien claimant and other unaddressed lien issues, necessitating further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationStipulations with Request for AwardIndustrial injuryHeart injuryPsyche injuryCorrectional officerTemporary disabilityPermanent disability
References
3
Case No. ADJ18376723
Regular
Oct 09, 2025

Miguel Mejinez vs. Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding an order that rescinded a prior directive for the applicant to disclose medical history under Labor Code section 4663(d). The defendant argued that section 4663(d) compels disclosure upon request and that they suffered prejudice from the applicant's refusal. However, the Board, concurring with the WCJ's recommendation, found that while section 4663 broadened the scope of discovery, it did not expand the methods of compelled discovery, which are limited to oral testimony and records under Labor Code section 5708. Consequently, the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm necessary for removal, concluding that written interrogatories are not an appropriate method for compelled discovery in workers' compensation cases.

Petition for RemovalOrder Rescinding OrderMedical History DisclosureLabor Code Section 4663(d)Previous Permanent DisabilitiesPhysical ImpairmentsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration Adequate RemedyWritten Interrogatories
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility v. Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General of the State of Texas

The case concerns an appeal by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Facility (the Facility) seeking a refund of approximately $24 million from the Comptroller for maintenance tax surcharges. The Facility argued it effectively paid the tax by reimbursing its member insurance companies and that the Department of Insurance exceeded its authority by adopting Rule 1.411, which mandated this reimbursement. The court rejected the Facility's arguments, holding that the member insurance companies, not the Facility, paid the tax, and affirmed the validity of Rule 1.411. Furthermore, the court found that the Facility failed to meet the statutory prerequisites for a tax refund, thereby affirming the trial court's judgment in favor of the Comptroller.

Tax RefundWorkers' Compensation InsuranceMaintenance Tax SurchargeInsurance LawAdministrative Rule ValidityAgency AuthorityStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentReimbursement ObligationInvoluntary Market
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 6,276 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