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. 14-14-00631-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2014

the Texas Workforce Commission v. the Harris County Appraisal District

The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) appeals the trial court's decision which granted summary judgment in favor of the Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD) and set aside fifteen TWC administrative decisions. The TWC argues that members of the Appraisal Review Board (ARB) should be considered HCAD employees, entitling them to unemployment benefits and wage credits. TWC contends that its decisions are supported by substantial evidence, including HCAD's control over ARB members' duties, payment, and tax reporting. TWC asserts that the trial court erred by providing relief beyond what HCAD requested and by failing to recognize that no legal exception for ARB members from unemployment coverage applies. TWC requests the appellate court to reverse the trial court’s order and affirm its original decisions.

Unemployment CompensationAppraisal Review BoardEmployment StatusIndependent ContractorSubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial ReviewTexas Labor CodeTexas Tax CodeSummary JudgmentAppellate Procedure
References
32
Case No. 2-03-081-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2003

Gerald DeMarsh, Sr. v. Texas Workforce Commission Mrs. Cassie Carlson Reed Mrs. Courtenay Browning, Unemployment Appeals Director And J. L. Myers Company

Appellant Gerald DeMarsh, Sr., appealed the trial court's judgment affirming the Texas Workforce Commission's (TWC) denial of unemployment compensation benefits. DeMarsh voluntarily left his employment with J.L. Myers Company, citing unsafe equipment and difficulty hiring staff. The TWC determined he was not entitled to benefits, a decision affirmed by the TWC Appeal Tribunal. The Denton County Court at Law No. 2 also affirmed the TWC's ruling, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeals, Second District of Texas, upheld the trial court's judgment, concluding that the TWC's determination was reasonable because DeMarsh did not afford his employer the opportunity to remedy safety concerns before quitting and acknowledged difficulties with staffing.

Unemployment BenefitsVoluntary QuitGood CauseSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewTexas LawWorkplace SafetyEmployer ResponsibilityPro Se LitigationAdministrative Decision
References
11
Case No. 01-02-01104-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2003

the City of Houston v. the Texas Workforce Commission & Glinda Martin

Glinda Martin, a cashier for the City of Houston, was laid off due to privatization. She applied for unemployment benefits, which the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) initially approved. The City appealed to the Appeal Tribunal, which reversed the decision, but the full TWC commission then reversed the Tribunal and awarded benefits to Martin. The City sought judicial review, and the trial court affirmed TWC's decision. The City of Houston appealed this judgment, arguing that TWC's decision lacked substantial evidence and that Martin voluntarily left her work. The Court of Appeals reviewed the case de novo and found substantial evidence to support TWC's decision that Martin did not voluntarily leave her employment, as her position was eliminated. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Unemployment BenefitsPrivatizationLayoffVoluntary SeparationSubstantial Evidence ReviewTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewEmployment LawAdministrative Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Igal v. Brightstar Information Technology Group, Inc.

The Texas Supreme Court addressed whether a final adjudication by the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) on a wage claim precludes a subsequent common law wage claim for the same wages in state court. Saleh Igal filed a wage claim with TWC, which was dismissed as untimely and without merit. Instead of appealing the TWC decision, Igal sued Brightstar and BRBA in district court for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. The Supreme Court held that the 180-day filing limitations period under the Texas Payday Law is mandatory but not jurisdictional. The Court affirmed that when a claimant pursues a wage claim to a final TWC adjudication, the doctrine of res judicata bars the claimant from relitigating the same claims for damages in a Texas court, even if the TWC dismissal was partly based on limitations. The Court thus affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals.

Res JudicataClaim PreclusionAdministrative LawTexas Payday LawWage ClaimSubject Matter JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsTexas Workforce Commission (TWC)Employment LawBreach of Contract
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tex-Fin, Inc. and Texas Workforce Commission v. Gustavo E. Ducharne

Gustavo E. Ducharne filed a wage claim against his former employer, Tex-Fin, Inc., under the Texas Payday Act, seeking unpaid commissions and severance after his termination. The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) dismissed his claim, a decision affirmed through administrative appeals. Ducharne then sought judicial review in district court, which partially granted his summary judgment motion, reversing the TWC's decision and remanding the case to the TWC for wage determination. Tex-Fin and the TWC appealed, arguing the trial court erred in its review and specific remand instructions. The appellate court reversed the portion of the trial court's judgment that remanded for wage determination, affirmed the remainder, and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the trial court misapplied contract law regarding Ducharne's bonus conditions and lacked authority for a specific remand to the TWC for wage calculation.

Wage claimTexas Payday ActCommissionsBonusesEmployment terminationJudicial reviewAdministrative decisionSubstantial evidence ruleDe novo reviewContract interpretation
References
43
Case No. 05-20-00994-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2022

Kenneth Henry v. Marc A. Notzon and Law Office of Marc A. Notzon, P.C.

Kenneth Henry sued Marc A. Notzon and his law office for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging that Notzon's undisclosed communications with Henry's employer, Time Warner Cable (TWC), led to Henry's termination. Henry, a TWC employee, was involved in a severe accident while driving a company truck. Notzon, who had a long-standing relationship with TWC, represented both Henry and TWC regarding the accident. The federal courts previously ruled that Henry's termination was due to his causing a severe, avoidable accident, not discrimination or retaliation. The current court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Notzon, applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel because the issue of causation for Henry's termination had already been litigated and decided in the federal lawsuit. The court also rejected Henry's claim for actual damages and fee forfeiture, noting that TWC's worker's compensation administrator paid Notzon's fees, not Henry.

Collateral EstoppelBreach of Fiduciary DutySummary JudgmentCausationWrongful TerminationDisability DiscriminationWorkers' Compensation RetaliationAttorney-Client PrivilegeFifth CircuitTexas Court of Appeals
References
22
Case No. 04-0931
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2007

Saleh W. Igal v. Brightstar Information Technology Group, Inc. and Brba, Inc.

In this case, Saleh W. Igal filed a wage claim with the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) after his employment termination, seeking unpaid wages. TWC dismissed the claim, citing both lack of merits and untimely filing. Subsequently, Igal sued Brightstar and BRBA in a Texas district court for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. Both the trial court and court of appeals granted summary judgment, holding that TWC's final decision barred Igal's claims through res judicata. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed, ruling that the 180-day filing period for TWC wage claims is mandatory but not jurisdictional, and that res judicata applies to final TWC administrative decisions when the agency acts in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of fact. The Court concluded that by pursuing his administrative claim to a final, unappealed judgment, Igal was precluded from relitigating the same claims in state court, thus upholding the application of claim preclusion.

Res judicataClaim preclusionAdministrative lawTexas Payday LawWage claimSubject matter jurisdictionStatute of limitationsExhaustion of administrative remediesTexas Workforce CommissionBreach of contract
References
79
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Texas Workforce Commission

Juan Hernandez appealed the Texas Workforce Commission's (TWC) decision to disqualify him from unemployment benefits. Hernandez argued that the TWC's finding of misconduct (dishonesty during an investigation) was not the stated reason for his discharge by his employer, Greyhound Lines, Inc., which had cited personal long-distance calls. He also claimed a due process violation. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the TWC's decision, on the grounds that Hernandez failed to present sufficient controverting evidence to rebut the presumption of validity of the TWC's decision.

Unemployment BenefitsMisconductDishonestyEmployer InvestigationJudicial ReviewAppellate CourtSubstantial EvidenceDue ProcessTermination of EmploymentTexas Workforce Commission
References
13
Case No. 07-12-00207-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2013

Texas Workforce Commission and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. Elnora Moses

Elnora Moses was terminated from TCEQ for violating Return to Work Certification (RWC) conditions, specifically discussing sexual assault allegations with co-workers and failing to complete a required psychiatric evaluation. Her subsequent application for unemployment benefits was denied by the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). While the trial court reversed TWC's decision, the Court of Appeals, Seventh District of Texas, found substantial evidence supported the TWC's original denial. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and affirmed the TWC's denial of unemployment benefits to Moses.

Unemployment BenefitsWorkplace MisconductInsubordinationWorkplace SafetyPsychiatric EvaluationProbation ViolationTexas LawAppellate ReviewAgency DecisionSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. 14-18-00489-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2021

Michael Van Deelen v. Texas Workforce Commission and Spring Independent School District

Michael Van Deelen appealed the denial of unemployment benefits by the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC), which found he was fired for misconduct by Spring Independent School District. The trial court granted summary judgment for TWC and Spring ISD, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the TWC's decision. On appeal, Van Deelen challenged this ruling. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, finding that substantial evidence supported the TWC's determination that Van Deelen's employment termination was due to misconduct, including making false accusations, assaulting a principal, and misrepresenting his employment history.

Unemployment BenefitsEmployment MisconductTermination of EmploymentFalse AllegationsWorkplace AssaultEmployment Application FraudSummary Judgment AffirmanceSubstantial Evidence StandardTexas Workforce CommissionAppellate Review
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 48 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