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
Dec 18, 2015

First Texas Bank v. Chris Carpenter

Chris Carpenter, a roofing contractor, was injured after falling from a ladder while inspecting hail damage on First Texas Bank's roof with an insurance adjuster. Carpenter sued the Bank, alleging a defective ladder, but the Bank invoked Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which limits a property owner's liability to contractors under certain conditions. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the Bank. The court of appeals reversed, concluding Carpenter was not a 'contractor' as contemplated by the statute due to the absence of a formal contract. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appeals court's definition of 'contractor' under Chapter 95, stating that an actual contract isn't always required and Carpenter was indeed a contractor. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' judgment to remand the case because the evidence did not establish that Carpenter's injury occurred while he was performing work explicitly covered by Chapter 95, as the Bank had not yet decided on specific repairs.

Contractor definitionProperty owner liabilityChapter 95Texas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeStatutory constructionPremises liabilityScope of workSummary judgment reversalRoofing workInjury claim
References
7
Case No. 15-25-00012-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2025

State of Texas, Acting by and Through the Texas Facilities Commission, for and on Behalf of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; The Texas Facilities Commission; Mike Novak, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Facilities Commission; The Texas Health and Human Services Commission; And Rolland Niles in His Official Capacity as Deputy Executive Commissioner for the System Support Services Division of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. 8317 Cross Park, LLC

This is an interlocutory appeal from a denial-in-part of Appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction. Appellee filed an action against the State of Texas, TFC, HHSC, Executive Director Mike Novak of TFC, and Deputy Executive Commissioner for System Support Services Division of HHSC Rolland Niles alleging causes of action for breach of lease, ultra vires conduct related to the termination of the lease, and declaratory relief. Appellants argue that the trial court erred in denying their plea because Chapter 114 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code does not waive sovereign immunity for the State of Texas, HHSC, or TFC for breach of lease claims, and the lease is not a contract for goods or services covered by Chapter 114. Furthermore, Appellants contend that the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) does not waive sovereign immunity for Appellee's declaratory judgment claim as it does not challenge the constitutionality or validity of a statute, and Appellee has not alleged a cognizable ultra vires claim against the state officials. Appellants seek reversal of the partial denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and dismissal of Appellee's claims.

Sovereign ImmunityBreach of LeaseDeclaratory JudgmentUltra ViresTexas Civil Practices and Remedies CodeTexas Government CodeAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionState AgenciesContract Law
References
44
Case No. 12-23-00263-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2023

In Re: East Texas Medical Center Athens v. the State of Texas

East Texas Medical Center Athens (ETMC Athens) filed an original proceeding to challenge an order from Respondent Judge Jason Ellis, which struck ETMC Athens' designation of Gary Woolverton and ETMC EMS as responsible third parties. Sharon Dunn, the Real Party in Interest, was injured while working at a facility under ETMC Athens and initially sued Woolverton and ETMC EMS; those claims were dismissed. Dunn then amended her petition to include ETMC Athens, a nonsubscriber to workers' compensation. ETMC Athens sought to designate Woolverton and ETMC EMS as responsible third parties, but Dunn successfully moved to strike this, arguing Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code does not apply to workers' compensation actions. The appellate court denied the writ of mandamus, affirming that a negligence case against a nonsubscribing employer is considered an action for workers' compensation benefits under Texas law, thus precluding the designation of responsible third parties under Section 33.004 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

MandamusResponsible Third PartyWorkers' CompensationNonsubscriber EmployerTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 33Texas Labor CodeAbuse of DiscretionAppellate LawStatutory InterpretationCommon Law Negligence
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2015

Sidney B. Hale, Jr. v. City of Bonham

The document comprises two appendices related to Texas law. Appendix A presents Chapter 101 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, known as the Texas Tort Claims Act, which addresses governmental liability for torts, defining terms, outlining liability for governmental units, setting limitations on liability, and detailing procedural aspects. Appendix B includes sections from Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, concerning purchasing and contracting authority for municipalities, counties, and other local governments, with a focus on definitions, waivers of immunity for breach of contract, and limitations on adjudication awards.

Texas lawGovernmental immunityTort claimsMunicipal liabilityLocal governmentPurchasing authorityContracting authorityStatutory interpretationSovereign immunityCivil practice and remedies
References
0
Case No. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

Gerard Matzen// Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office v. Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office// Cross-Appellee, Gerard Matzen

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Owens Corning v. Carter

This case involves consolidated direct appeals to the Texas Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of several sections of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code: 71.031(a)(3) (borrowing statute), 71.051 (forum non conveniens), and 71.052(b) and (c) (asbestos claim dismissal provisions). Alabama plaintiffs challenged these sections on various constitutional grounds, including retroactivity, open courts, privileges and immunities, equal protection, and special laws. The trial court's judgment was affirmed regarding the constitutionality of section 71.051, which does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's findings on sections 71.031(a)(3), 71.052(b), and 71.052(c), holding that they do not violate any asserted constitutional provisions and instructed the trial court to vacate related injunctions.

Constitutional LawTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAsbestos LitigationForum Non ConveniensBorrowing StatuteRetroactivityPrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSpecial LawsStatutory Interpretation
References
55
Case No. 03-15-00252-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Dr. Behzad Nazari, D.D.S. D/B/A Antoine Dental Center Dr. Behzad Nazari Harlingen Family Dentistry, P.C. A/K/A Practical Business Solutions, Series LLC Juan D. Villarreal D.D.S., Series PLLC D/B/A Harlingen Family Dentistry Group v. State

This appeal stems from a civil Medicaid fraud lawsuit initiated by the State of Texas against Xerox Corporation, alleging the company failed to adequately review orthodontic service prior authorization requests, leading to $1.1 billion in unlawful payments to providers. Xerox contends that the State's Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act (TMFPA) claim is a statutory tort, therefore obligating the application of Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code for proportionate responsibility. The trial court, however, ruled that Chapter 33 does not apply to the TMFPA claim, consequently striking Xerox's third-party claims and denying its motion to designate responsible third parties. Xerox asserts that this exclusion of other potentially responsible parties skews the proceedings, compromises its defense, and creates an inefficient, piecemeal litigation process, constituting a clear abuse of discretion.

Medicaid fraudPrior authorizationStatutory tortProportionate responsibilityChapter 33Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention ActXeroxHealthcare claimsGovernment contractsJudicial discretion
References
56
Case No. 03-06-00257-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2009

Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Texas v. GameTech International, Inc. Anthony J. Sadberry, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Lottery Commission And Texas Lottery Commission

Greg Abbott, as Attorney General of Texas, appealed a summary judgment that deemed settlement letters between GameTech International, Inc., and the Texas Lottery Commission exempt from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA). The Attorney General contended that no other law rendered these communications confidential. The appellate court examined whether the confidentiality provisions of the Governmental Dispute Resolution Act and the civil practice and remedies code applied to informal settlement negotiations. It concluded that these statutes only cover communications made within statutorily defined alternative dispute resolution procedures, which the exchanged settlement offers were not. Furthermore, the court found no common-law privilege protecting settlement negotiations or a corporate right to privacy. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's judgment, ruling that the settlement letters are not exempt from PIA disclosure requirements.

Public Information ActOpen Records RequestSettlement NegotiationsConfidentiality ExceptionStatutory ConstructionGovernmental Dispute ResolutionAlternative Dispute ResolutionCorporate Right to PrivacySummary Judgment AppealTexas Court of Appeals
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abraham v. Greer

This case involves an appeal from an order dismissing a libel suit filed by Salem Abraham against Daniel Greer and Fix the Facts Foundation d/b/a AgendaWise. The dismissal occurred under Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Texas Supreme Court remanded the case for the Court of Appeals to consider remaining issues, including journalist privilege, the status of Greer and AgendaWise as journalists, and the constitutionality of Chapters 22 and 27 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Court of Appeals overruled all issues, affirming the trial court's dismissal. It found that Abraham failed to preserve his complaints regarding the trial court's failure to rule on privilege objections and the journalist status, and concluded that the interplay between Chapters 22 and 27 did not unconstitutionally abridge Abraham's common law remedy for defamation under the open courts provision, as discovery was permissible, albeit limited.

LibelDefamationJournalist PrivilegeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 27Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 22Anti-SLAPP StatuteOpen Courts ProvisionDue ProcessAppellate ReviewMotion to Dismiss
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

El Paso Electric Co. v. Texas Department of Insurance

The Texas Supreme Court addressed whether the State Insurance Liquidator, acting as a receiver or conservator for an insolvent insurance company, qualifies as a 'state agency' under Chapter 105 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Chapter 105 permits litigants to recover fees and expenses if a state agency brings a frivolous claim. Reversing the lower courts, the Supreme Court determined that the receiver and conservator primarily perform a public, regulatory function under the ultimate control of the State Board of Insurance (or Department of Insurance). Therefore, their actions are attributable to the Board for Chapter 105 purposes. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine if the counterclaim was, in fact, frivolous.

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeChapter 105State AgenciesFrivolous ClaimsInsurance RegulationState Insurance LiquidatorInsolvent InsurersReceivershipConservatorshipAttorney's Fees
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 14,201 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