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. 03-00-00370-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2000

Texas General Indemnity Company v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Todd Brown in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission And Michael L. MacIk

Texas General Indemnity Company (TGI) filed a declaratory judgment action in Travis County challenging the validity of Rule 130.8 of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC). The district court granted TWCC's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed TGI's suit, also conditionally denying TGI's summary judgment motion and granting TWCC's. TGI appealed, arguing mandatory jurisdiction in Travis County and that Rule 130.8 conflicted with the Labor Code. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, applying res judicata due to a prior adverse ruling against TGI on the same issue in Texas Gen. Indem. Co. v. Eisler. Additionally, the court affirmed the conditional judgment, concluding Rule 130.8 is a valid exercise of the Commission's rulemaking authority and does not conflict with the Texas Labor Code.

Administrative Rule ChallengeDeclaratory JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsImpairment Income BenefitsRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelStatutory InterpretationRulemaking AuthorityTexas Administrative Procedure ActLabor Code
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission v. Texas Builders Insurance Co.

The case involves an appeal by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission, the Subsequent Injury Fund, and its Executive Director (collectively "the Commission") against Texas Builders Insurance Company (TBIC). The Commission appealed a trial court's judgment that declared TBIC was entitled to reimbursement from the Fund under Texas Labor Code section 410.205(c) and awarded TBIC attorney's fees. The appellate court addressed three core issues: (1) whether TBIC could sue for enforcement of its reimbursement rights, concluding that the Texas Labor Code section 410.205(c) waived sovereign immunity and authorized a direct suit; (2) whether the Commission had the discretion to deny TBIC's reimbursement claim after a district court granted a no-answer default judgment, determining that the statutory language was mandatory for the Commission; and (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, which the court affirmed. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding TBIC's right to reimbursement and the award of attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation ActSubsequent Injury FundSovereign ImmunityJudicial ReviewDefault JudgmentStatutory InterpretationAttorney's FeesDeclaratory Judgment ActAdministrative Procedure ActInsurance Carrier Reimbursement
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

HCA Healthcare Corp. v. Texas Department of Insurance

This case involves HCA Healthcare Corporation and other hospitals (collectively, "the Hospitals") who filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Texas Department of Insurance, its Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC), and Commissioner Albert Betts, Jr. The Hospitals sought to reverse 1,406 decisions issued by DWC and challenged the facial constitutionality of former Texas Labor Code § 413.031(k) for allegedly failing to provide a right to a contested case hearing in medical disputes. Texas Mutual Insurance Company also intervened. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the Hospitals and Texas Mutual on the right to a hearing but denied the Hospitals' request to set aside the 1,406 DWC orders. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of the Hospitals' request to set aside the DWC decisions, citing a lack of jurisdiction due to untimely appeals. Furthermore, the court reversed the trial court's declaration that former § 413.031(k) was facially unconstitutional, rendering judgment that the statute is indeed facially constitutional.

Medical Dispute ResolutionWorkers' CompensationTexas Labor CodeFacial ConstitutionalityJudicial ReviewAdministrative Procedure ActSummary JudgmentAppellate CourtDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive Relief
References
16
Case No. 03-22-00241-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2023

Texas Political Subdivisions Joint Self-Insurance Fund v. Texas Department of Insurance - Division of Workers' Compensation and Commissioner Cassie Brown in Her Official Capacity

The Texas Political Subdivisions Joint Self-Insurance Fund (TPS Fund) appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and summary-judgment motion by the 455th District Court of Travis County. The TPS Fund, a self-insured governmental entity, was assessed administrative penalties totaling $132,500 by the Texas Department of Insurance–Division of Workers’ Compensation for violations of the Texas Labor Code related to nonpayment or late payment of workers’ compensation benefits. The TPS Fund asserted governmental immunity from these penalties. The Court of Appeals reviewed the legislative history and prior common law, including Texas Workers’ Comp. Comm’n v. City of Eagle Pass, to determine if immunity was waived. It concluded that the 2019 amendment to Labor Code Section 504.053(e) merely codified existing law, which had already established a clear waiver of immunity for such regulatory actions against self-insured political subdivisions. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order, holding that the TPS Fund’s governmental immunity is waived for the administrative penalties.

Workers' CompensationGovernmental ImmunityAdministrative PenaltiesTexas Labor CodeSelf-InsurancePolitical SubdivisionsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewRegulatory AuthoritySovereign Immunity
References
13
Case No. NO. 03-98-00566-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 1999

Texas Department of Insurance Jose Montemayor, Commissioner of Insurance John Cornyn, Texas Attorney General Carole Keeton Rylander, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts And Texas Public Finance Authority v. American Home Assurance Company and the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania

The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's judgment in a tax refund case involving workers' compensation insurance. Appellees, two insurance companies, sued the State for a partial refund of taxes paid under protest, contending that a 1993 amendment to the Texas Insurance Code, Article 5.68(b), which expanded the tax base for certain maintenance taxes, did not apply to a separate surcharge tax. The amendment explicitly stated its application to Article 5.68 and Labor Code Section 403.002, but made no mention of the surcharge statute, Article 5.76-5. The appellate court found the language clear and unambiguous, concluding that the legislature's omission of the surcharge statute was deliberate and that the expanded definition of 'gross workers' compensation insurance premiums' applied only to the specified articles. Therefore, the State's assessment of the surcharge based on modified premiums was incorrect, and the district court's order for a refund was upheld.

Workers' CompensationInsurance TaxStatutory InterpretationTax BaseDeductible PlansTexas Insurance CodeTexas Labor CodeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewGross Premiums
References
28
Case No. 03-03-00176-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2003

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund/Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Leonard D. Watts v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Leonard D. Watts/Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves a cross-appeal stemming from a workers' compensation claim by Leonard D. Watts, who sought lifetime income benefits for injuries sustained as a truck driver. The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (appeals panel) initially reversed a hearing officer's decision and awarded Watts benefits, but this decision was later set aside by a Travis County district court. In this appeal, the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund (Texas Mutual) and the Commission challenged the district court's ruling. The Court of Appeals addressed arguments regarding the appeals panel's statutory authority for factual-sufficiency review and the interpretation of "issue" under the labor code, including legal doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court ultimately reversed the judgment of the district court, thereby affirming the decision of the Commission's appeals panel which granted Watts lifetime income benefits.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsAppeals Panel ReviewFactual SufficiencyStatutory AuthorityCross-AppealRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelCausationMaximum Medical Improvement
References
17
Case No. KP-0431
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion: KP-0431

This opinion addresses the applicability of Texas's minimum wage laws to minor league baseball players. It confirms that minor league baseball players are "covered by" the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which subsequently exempts them from the minimum wage requirements of Texas Labor Code chapter 62, pursuant to section 62.151. The opinion further considers whether a state-law exemption for "amusement or recreational establishments" under Labor Code section 62.158 would apply. It notes that this is a fact-bound inquiry, but suggests that a six-month baseball season could meet the seasonality requirement for this exemption.

Minimum Wage LawsFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Minor League BaseballTexas Labor CodeExemptionsAmusement or Recreational EstablishmentSave America’s Pastime Act (SAPA)Interstate CommerceEmployment LawAttorney General Opinion
References
16
Case No. 03-13-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage // Cross-Appellant,Texas Medical Association v. Texas Medical Association// Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage

The amicus brief, submitted by The Association of Marital and Family Therapy Regulatory Boards (AMFTRB), urges the Third Court of Appeals to grant en banc reconsideration and reverse a panel's decision that found 22 TEX. ADMIN CODE §801.42(13) invalid. The brief argues that Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists (LMFTs) are fully qualified, trained, and tested to perform diagnostic assessments within their therapeutic role. It asserts that diagnosis alone, in the context of marriage and family therapy, does not constitute the practice of medicine under the Texas Medical Practice Act, and preventing LMFTs from performing these assessments would effectively prohibit their professional practice and create a shortage of mental health professionals in Texas. The AMFTRB also highlights that the legislature did not intend for LMFTs to be supervised by physicians and that the structure of the Occupations Code supports marriage and family therapy as a stand-alone profession. Additionally, the brief questions the qualification of the Texas Medical Association's expert witness due to prior ethical lapses.

Marriage and Family TherapyDiagnostic AssessmentMedical Practice ActOccupations CodeRegulatory BoardsLicensureScope of PracticeMental Health ServicesTexasAccreditation
References
9
Case No. 03-07-00007-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2009

HCA Healthcare Corporation \\ Albert Betts, Jr. and Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation v. Texas Department of Insurance Albert Betts, Jr. and Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation\\ HCA Healthcare Corporation

This case concerns an appeal from the District Court of Travis County regarding the constitutionality of a provision within the Texas Labor Code related to medical dispute resolution in workers' compensation. HCA Healthcare Corporation and other hospitals ("the Hospitals") initially sued the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) and its Division of Workers' Compensation (DWC), seeking to reverse 1,406 DWC decisions and challenging the constitutionality of former Texas Labor Code § 413.031(k). The trial court granted summary judgment for the Hospitals, finding the subsection unconstitutional for not providing a contested case hearing, but denied reversing the DWC decisions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial to set aside the 1,406 DWC decisions, ruling that the district court lacked jurisdiction due to the Hospitals' failure to file timely petitions for judicial review. Additionally, the appellate court reversed the declaration of unconstitutionality, holding that former Texas Labor Code § 413.031(k) is facially constitutional, as the Hospitals did not demonstrate its unconstitutionality across all applications, including medical necessity disputes.

Workers' CompensationMedical DisputesConstitutional LawAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSummary JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionTexas Labor CodeDeclaratory JudgmentFacial Challenge
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

The Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool, representing numerous self-insured political subdivisions, challenged specific sections of the Texas Labor Code and associated administrative rules. These provisions require workers' compensation insurance carriers, including the Risk Pool, to pay death benefits (in cases where no legal beneficiary exists) into the Subsequent Injury Fund. This fund is then used to compensate workers who sustain second injuries and to reimburse other insurance carriers. The Risk Pool contended that these mandates violate Article III, Section 52(a) of the Texas Constitution, which restricts political subdivisions from lending credit or granting public money to individuals or private corporations without a pre-existing legal obligation. While the trial court initially agreed with the Risk Pool, the court of appeals reversed this decision, and the Supreme Court subsequently affirmed that reversal. Justice Owen dissents from this judgment, arguing that the challenged funding mechanism is unconstitutional, as it compels political subdivisions to fund compensation for non-employees and to reimburse private carriers, citing the precedent set in *City of Tyler v. Texas Employers’ Insurance Association*.

Texas ConstitutionPolitical SubdivisionsWorkers' CompensationSubsequent Injury FundSelf-InsuranceDeath BenefitsConstitutional LawPublic FundsIntergovernmental Risk PoolStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 14,564 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