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

Rodriguez v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a workers' compensation carrier. The appellant's husband died at work, and the carrier denied death benefits, leading the appellant to sue for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and for treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). While the appellant successfully recovered workers' compensation benefits, the trial court granted summary judgment on the DTPA claim, ruling that the decedent was not a "consumer" as defined by the Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the relationship between the decedent and the compensation carrier was statutory, not contractual, meaning there was no "purchase" of goods or services to establish consumer status under the DTPA. Therefore, the denial of workers' compensation liability alone did not give rise to a cause of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Workers' CompensationDeceptive Trade PracticesSummary Judgment AppealConsumer StatusInsurance LiabilityStatutory RelationshipContractual RelationshipDeath Benefits ClaimTreble DamagesAppellate Court Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woods v. Littleton

Jackie and Cheryl Woods sued B. L. Littleton and Joe S. Thomson, doing business as Superior Construction Company, for defective sewer systems and faulty repairs, alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The trial court found the Act applicable and actions deceptive but declined to treble damages. The court of civil appeals reversed and remanded, questioning the Act's applicability. This court affirmed the remand, ruling that the Act applies to deceptive practices occurring after its effective date (May 21, 1973), even if the initial sale was earlier, and that treble damages are mandatory once liability is established. The case was remanded for a retrial to determine actual damages solely attributable to post-effective date deceptive practices, which must then be trebled.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer ProtectionMandatory Treble DamagesStatutory InterpretationRemand for RetrialSewer System DefectsFaulty Repair ServiceReal Estate TransactionPost-Effective Date ApplicabilityMental Anguish Damages
References
18
Case No. 15-25-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2024

City of Coppell, Texas; City of Humble, Texas; City of DeSoto, Texas; City of Carrollton, Texas; And City of Farmer's Branch, Texas // Kelly Hancock, in His Official Capacity as Acting Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas v. Kelly Hancock, in His Official Capacity as Acting Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas // City of Coppell, Texas; City of Humble, Texas; City of DeSoto, Texas; City of Carrollton, Texas; City of Farmer's Branch, Texas; And City of Round Rock, Texas

The case involves a legal dispute over the State of Texas Comptroller's amendments to Rule 3.334, which governs local sales and use tax sourcing, especially for e-commerce and fulfillment centers. The applicant cities challenge several subsections of the rule, arguing they contravene existing statutes, prior interpretations, and the Administrative Procedure Act due to inadequate notice and reasoned justification. The Comptroller asserts the amendments clarify long-standing interpretations to address modern e-commerce practices, ensure uniform tax application, and prevent revenue manipulation, maintaining that the changes are within their statutory rulemaking authority. The trial court invalidated several contested subsections of Rule 3.334, permanently enjoining their enforcement and remanding them for further consideration. Both parties are appealing aspects of the trial court's decision, with the Comptroller cross-appealing the invalidity rulings. The issue is significant to Texas jurisprudence, determining where sales or use taxes are consummated for local allocation.

Sales Tax SourcingLocal Sales TaxE-commerceFulfillment CentersAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationTexas Tax CodeRule 3.334Tax Revenue AllocationJudicial Review of Agency Action
References
21
Case No. 11-06-00187-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2008

Law Offices of Miller & Bicklein v. Deep East Texas Self-Insurance Fund and Risk Management Services

The Law Offices of Miller & Bicklein sued Deep East Texas Self-Insurance Fund and Risk Management Services over attorney's fees under Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 417.003, along with claims for unfair insurance practices and Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act violations. The trial court awarded Miller & Bicklein a partial amount for attorney's fees under Section 417.003 but granted summary judgment against them on the other claims. Miller & Bicklein appealed, arguing error in the summary judgment and refusal to award additional attorney's fees. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's orders, finding no error in the summary judgment regarding DTPA and insurance practices claims, and no abuse of discretion in denying additional attorney's fees under the Declaratory Judgments Act.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentDTPAUnfair Insurance PracticesDeclaratory Judgments ActAppellate ReviewSubrogation InterestLegal EthicsTexas Jurisprudence
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Avila v. State

Samuel and Nilsa Avila, operating as Mundo Latino, appealed a judgment and permanent injunction issued after a jury trial initiated by the State of Texas under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). The Avilas, who assisted Spanish-speaking individuals with immigration and tax matters without proper licensing, were found to have engaged in false, misleading, and deceptive practices. The jury found they unlawfully counseled on immigration and acted as notaries in prohibited ways. The trial court ordered them to pay $60,000 each for restitution and $100,000 each in penalties, plus attorneys’ fees. The appellate court affirmed the judgment and permanent injunction but modified the injunction by deleting an overbroad paragraph that restricted the Avilas' access to all financial assets, including those from legitimate business activities.

Unauthorized Practice of LawDeceptive Trade PracticesConsumer ProtectionImmigration ServicesNotary Public ViolationsPermanent InjunctionRestitutionCivil PenaltiesSufficiency of EvidenceHearsay Exception
References
23
Case No. 05-21-00758-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2022

Yvette Branch v. Laura McCaskill, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage NRT Texas LLC, Full Scope Property Inspection PLLC

Yvette Branch appealed a trial court's judgment awarding attorney's fees to Laura McCaskill, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company, and NRT Texas, LLC. The case originated from a failed real estate transaction where Branch was the buyer and appellees represented the sellers. Branch subsequently sued the appellees, alleging various claims including violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), fraud, trespass, and negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees on all claims and awarded them attorney's fees. On appeal, Branch challenged the attorney's fee award, arguing it was not authorized by contract, not justified under the DTPA, and not reasonable or necessary. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the attorney's fees were authorized by the 'related to this contract' clause in the real estate agreement and that the awarded amount was reasonable and necessary.

Attorney's FeesSummary JudgmentReal Estate ContractDeceptive Trade Practices ActTrespass ClaimNegligence ClaimFraud ClaimAppellate ReviewTexas Civil PracticePrevailing Party
References
12
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2015

State v. Emeritus Corporation

The State of Texas, through the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), sued Emeritus Corporation, an assisted living facility operator, for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices – Consumer Protection Act (DTPA) and the Assisted Living Facility Licensing Act (ALFLA). This action stemmed from an incident where a resident with dementia eloped from the facility and was later found deceased. The State sought statutory civil penalties and injunctive relief. Emeritus moved for dismissal, asserting the case constituted a health care liability claim under the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA), which would require an expert report that the State had not filed. The trial court granted Emeritus's motion to dismiss, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the State, acting in its sovereign capacity and seeking civil penalties rather than compensatory damages, is not a 'claimant' subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement.

Assisted Living FacilityElder Care NeglectDeceptive Trade PracticesCivil PenaltiesInjunctive ReliefTexas Medical Liability ActExpert Report RequirementSovereign ImmunityStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Health Enterprises, Inc. v. Gentry

Sharon Gentry, an employee of Deerings nursing home, sued her employer for a back injury sustained on the job in May 1988. Gentry claimed negligence, breach of contract, and deceptive trade practices under the Texas Insurance Code. The jury found against negligence but in favor of Gentry for breach of contract and deceptive practices. Deerings, a non-subscriber to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, had an employee handbook that listed 'WORKERS’ COMPENSATION' as a benefit, which Gentry interpreted as comparable to state benefits. Deerings denied Gentry's medical expenses after she refused to see their choice of doctor. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding the contract findings but reversed and rendered judgment for Deerings on the deceptive trade practice claim, stating Deerings was not engaged in the business of insurance.

Non-subscriber EmployerBreach of ContractDeceptive Trade PracticesEmployment DisputeMedical Expense DisputeEmployee BenefitsTexas Insurance CodeAppellate DecisionJob InjuryEmployer Policy
References
1
Case No. 03-93-00512-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1995

Albert G. Banks v. Texas Employers' Insurance Association

Albert Banks appealed a take-nothing summary judgment that denied his claims against the Texas Employers' Insurance Association (TEIA) for mishandling his workers' compensation claim. Banks sustained a shoulder injury while working for Burnet Consolidated Independent School District, which was self-insured and utilized TEIA to adjust claims. After initial benefits, payments ceased despite a second surgery. Banks sued, alleging breach of good faith and fair dealing, as well as violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and the insurance code. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that TEIA, as an adjusting firm, did not owe Banks a duty of good faith and fair dealing, and that his claims under the insurance code and DTPA were not actionable based on controlling supreme court precedent.

Workers' Compensation ClaimSummary Judgment AppealDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingInsurance Claims HandlingDeceptive Trade Practices ActInsurance Code ViolationsClaims Adjuster LiabilityAppellate Court DecisionEmployment InjuryTexas Civil Procedure
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 11,537 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