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. 13-14-00113-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2015

Texas Health and Human Services Commission and the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services v. Jose P. Baldonado

The case involves an appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS). Appellee Jose P. Baldonado sued for age discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) after being denied a position by HHSC and subsequently terminated by DADS. Appellants argued a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting Baldonado failed to establish a prima facie case for both claims and did not exhaust administrative remedies against DADS. The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Baldonado raised sufficient fact questions regarding his qualifications, the causal link for retaliation, and the exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court highlighted DADS's status as an agency within HHSC and its participation in the administrative complaint process as evidence of proper notice.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRetaliationPlea to JurisdictionTCHRAPrima Facie CaseAdministrative RemediesSovereign ImmunityInterlocutory AppealTexas Court of Appeals
References
25
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. 15-25-00013-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2025

State of Texas, the Texas Facilities Commission, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Mike Novak, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the TFC, 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. Broadmoor Austin Associates, a Texas Joint Venture

Broadmoor Austin Associates leased office space to the Texas government, specifically the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), through the Texas Facilities Commission (TFC). Rent has been unpaid for nearly two years due to alleged misconduct by state officials. Broadmoor asserts that sovereign immunity does not bar its claims for breach of contract, citing Chapter 114's express waiver for contracts involving construction and related services. Additionally, Broadmoor brings ultra vires claims against TFC Executive Director Mike Novak and HHSC Deputy Executive Commissioner Roland Niles, alleging their actions were beyond legal authority or a failure to perform ministerial duties. Broadmoor seeks prospective injunctive and declaratory relief to ensure these officials comply with state law, specifically regarding the availability of appropriated funds for the lease.

Sovereign ImmunityBreach of ContractUltra Vires DoctrineState AgenciesGovernment ContractsLease AgreementsLegislative AppropriationsExecutive AuthorityJudicial ReviewTexas Facilities Commission
References
69
Case No. 03-23-00100-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Julius Kadia

Julius Kadia sued the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (Commission) for workplace discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), alleging he was denied promotions to an LVN position due to his race and national origin despite being qualified. The Commission appealed an interlocutory order denying its plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment. The court found that Kadia raised a fact issue on a prima-facie case of discrimination and retaliation for several claims, including temporary reassignment to a "facility jail" and some promotion denials, allowing those claims to proceed. However, some of Kadia's claims for specific job postings and an overtime denial were dismissed or required repleading due to issues with exhaustion of administrative remedies, causal link, or pretext.

Workplace DiscriminationRetaliationTexas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA)Failure to PromoteLVNSovereign ImmunityAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionGupta ExceptionCat's Paw TheoryMaterially Adverse Employment Action
References
65
Case No. 08-19-00279-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2021

Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Maria Enriquez

Maria Enriquez was terminated from her custodian position at the El Paso State Supported Living Center, operated by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (THHSC), for allegedly stealing an iPad. She filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful termination, including a claim of retaliation. The trial court initially denied THHSC's plea to the jurisdiction regarding the retaliation claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order, concluding that Enriquez failed to overcome THHSC’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for her termination—the belief that she stole the iPad. The court found that Enriquez did not establish a causal link between her protected activities (previous complaints of age discrimination and mismanagement) and her termination, as required by the 'but-for' causation standard under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA).

Wrongful TerminationRetaliation ClaimAge DiscriminationGovernmental ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkCausation StandardPretext for DiscriminationTemporal ProximityTexas Health and Human Services Commission
References
25
Case No. 13-24-00588-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2025

Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Cristal Rojas

Appellant Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in an employment discrimination lawsuit by appellee Cristal Rojas. Rojas alleged sex discrimination and a hostile work environment under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), claiming she was repeatedly assigned to a sexually aggressive male patient. The Court of Appeals found Rojas failed to provide a prima facie case for either claim, specifically regarding the severity of harassment and less favorable treatment compared to similarly situated employees. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's decision, ruling that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Rojas's claims.

Employment discriminationHostile work environmentSex discriminationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActSovereign immunityPlea to the jurisdictionPrima facie caseBurden-shifting frameworkAppellate reviewTexas Labor Code Chapter 21
References
29
Case No. NO. 12-23-00204-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2024

Melissa Brown v. the State of Texas and Texas Department of Health and Human Services

Melissa Brown, an African American former employee of HHSC, appealed the trial court's judgment granting a plea to the jurisdiction filed by The State of Texas and HHSC. Brown alleged retaliation and racial discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), and mishandling of leave requests and job applications under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding Brown failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliation under the TCHRA due to a lack of causal connection between her protected activity and alleged adverse actions. Additionally, her TTCA negligence claim did not fall within the limited waiver of sovereign immunity as job applications and leave requests were not considered "tangible personal property."

RetaliationDiscriminationTCHRATTCASovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionAdverse Employment ActionCausationTangible Personal PropertyEmployment Discrimination
References
29
Case No. 23-0697
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

State of Texas Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas Texas Medical Board Texas Health and Human Services Commission And Ken Paxton, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Lazaro Loe, Individually and as Next Friend of Luna Loe, a Minor Mary Moe and Matthew Moe, Individually and as Next Friends of Maeve Moe, a Minor Nora Noe, Individually and as Next Friend of Nathan Noe, a Minor Sarah Soe and Steven Soe, Individually and as Next Friends of Samantha Soe, a Minor Gina Goe, Individually and as Next Friend of Grayson Goe, a Minor Pflag, Inc. Richard Ogden Roberts III, M.D. David L. Paul, M.D. Patrick W. O'malley, M.D. And American Association of Physicians for Human

The Supreme Court of Texas reversed and vacated a temporary injunction against Senate Bill 14, which prohibits certain medical treatments for minors related to gender transition. Parents of children with gender dysphoria, along with physicians and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, had challenged the law as unconstitutional, alleging infringements on parental rights, occupational freedom for physicians, and discrimination based on sex and transgender status. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish a probable right to relief, asserting that parental rights are not absolute and the Legislature has constitutional authority to regulate medicine, especially regarding novel treatments for new conditions. The Court also found no unconstitutional discrimination, stating the law treats males and females equally in its prohibitions and that "transgender status" is not a protected class under the Texas Constitution.

Parental RightsMedical RegulationGender DysphoriaConstitutional LawDue Course of LawEqual ProtectionTransgender RightsMinors' Medical TreatmentLegislative AuthorityTexas Supreme Court
References
62
Case No. 17-0345
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2019

Patricia Mosley v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Patricia Mosley challenged her placement on the Employee Misconduct Registry by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. She sought judicial review without filing a motion for rehearing, relying on a misleading agency letter and regulation. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed that a motion for rehearing is a jurisdictional prerequisite for judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act. However, the court also ruled that the agency's affirmative misrepresentation regarding the appeal process violated Mosley's due process rights, preventing her from exhausting administrative remedies. The case was remanded to the Health and Human Services Commission to allow Mosley to file a motion for rehearing, thereby restoring her opportunity for judicial review.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewDue ProcessMotion for RehearingEmployee Misconduct RegistryTexas Health and Human Services CommissionTexas Department of Family and Protective ServicesJurisdictional PrerequisiteStatutory InterpretationAgency Misrepresentation
References
43
Case No. 03-16-00358-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2016

Patricia Mosley// Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Texas Department of Family and Protective Services// Cross-Appellee, Patricia Mosley

Patricia Mosley is appealing a trial court's decision that affirmed the Texas Health and Human Services Commission's (HHSC) order to place her on the Employee Misconduct Registry (EMR). This placement stems from an incident where AW, a disabled individual under Mosley's one-to-one supervision, swallowed batteries. Mosley argues that her actions did not constitute neglect, asserting that maintaining constant arm's-length supervision for nearly seven hours alone was impossible, AW's secretive self-harming behavior was unforeseeable given the absence of warning signs, and she lacked adequate training for AW's specific needs. The core legal arguments revolve around the definition of 'neglect' as a negligent act requiring foreseeability and the proper application of a negligence standard versus a strict liability standard.

Employee Misconduct RegistryNegligenceForeseeabilityDirect Care ServicesDisabled IndividualsHealth and Human ServicesAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawSubstantial Evidence RuleSupervision Requirements
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 15,778 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