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. 03-14-00801-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2015

the University of Texas System and the University of Texas at Dallas v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas And Marilyn Cameron

The University of Texas System and The University of Texas at Dallas (Appellants) are appealing a trial court's decision that granted summary judgment to Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, and intervenor Marilyn Cameron. The core issue revolves around an open records request for the names of human research subjects involved in a national security/terrorism study, which the University argued should remain confidential under Texas Government Code § 552.101 due to privacy concerns and academic freedom. The trial court's ruling mandated the disclosure of this information. Appellants contend that the Attorney General's motion for summary judgment lacked evidentiary support for negating confidentiality and that a more robust privacy analysis, encompassing the First Amendment right to academic freedom, is warranted. The case seeks a reversal of the summary judgment and a remand for a full trial on the merits with a broadened legal framework for privacy.

Academic FreedomConfidentiality of Research SubjectsPublic Information ActOpen Records RequestSummary JudgmentCommon-Law PrivacyConstitutional PrivacyHuman Research SubjectsFreedom of the PressFirst Amendment
References
21
Case No. 15-25-00011-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2025

The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, the University of Texas System, and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center v. Gensetix, Inc.

This document is Appellee Gensetix, Inc.'s brief in surreply to an appeal brought by The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, et al., before the Fifteenth Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas. Gensetix argues that the district court correctly denied the Appellants' plea to the jurisdiction. The core of Gensetix's argument centers on the Appellants' alleged abuse of Eleventh Amendment immunity, characterizing it as an unlawful 'Taking' of Gensetix's exclusive commercialization rights related to patents. The brief distinguishes the current case from Curadev Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. The Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. by highlighting the presence of disputed jurisdictional facts and the Appellants' invocation of sovereign power. Gensetix contends that the duration of the misappropriation is irrelevant to liability and asserts that some of the Appellants' arguments regarding contract interpretation are unpreserved. The appellee requests that the appellate court affirm the district court's decision.

Eleventh AmendmentSovereign ImmunityEminent DomainTakings ClausePatent LitigationIntellectual Property RightsCommercialization RightsJurisdictional PleaAppellate ProcedureTexas Courts
References
31
Case No. 03-05-00189-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation v. Insurance Council of Texas, Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Envoy Medical Systems, Inc.

The Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation (the "Division") promulgated a rule (28 Tex. Admin. Code § 133.309) to create a less expensive alternative review procedure for workers' compensation claims concerning the necessity of medical treatment. The Insurance Council of Texas, Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Envoy Medical Systems, L.P. (the "Joint Appellees") challenged the rule's validity in a declaratory judgment action. The district court granted the Joint Appellees' motion for summary judgment, declaring the rule invalid. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the rule was not in harmony with relevant governing statutes that allowed for judicial review of medical necessity disputes.

Workers' Compensation LawAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentMedical Necessity DisputesAlternative Dispute ResolutionAgency Rule ValidityTexas Court of Appeals
References
15
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. 01-07-00310-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2009

Sembera Security Systems, Inc. A/K/A Sembera Security, Inc. v. El Dorado Insurance Agency, Inc., and Texas Mutual Insurance Company, F/N/A Texas Workers' Compensation Fund and Texas Workers' Compensation Fund, Texas Workers' Compensation Fund

The case involves a dispute between Sembera Security Systems Inc. (Sembera) and Texas Mutual Insurance Company (TMI) regarding the cancellation of Sembera’s workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Sembera sued TMI for breach of contract, alleging that TMI improperly cancelled its policy for non-payment of an "additional premium" during the policy term, leading to the termination of an agreement with En-Touch Systems, Inc. and causing Sembera lost profits. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, with the trial court initially ruling in favor of Sembera. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that TMI's cancellation of the policy was justified due to Sembera's failure to repay a $490 portion of the estimated initial premium after the policy's retroactive reinstatement. The appellate court held that TMI had the contractual right to cancel for non-payment of premium.

Breach of ContractWorkers' Compensation InsuranceSummary JudgmentInsurance Policy CancellationNon-payment of PremiumContract InterpretationLost Profits DamagesAppellate ReviewRetroactive ReinstatementInsurance Agent Liability
References
11
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. 05-20-00525-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2022

the University of Texas System v. Diane M. Bartek

Diane M. Bartek, an employee of The University of Texas System, filed a worker's compensation claim for an occupational disease caused by mold exposure. The Division of Worker's Compensation and its appeals panel denied her claim. Bartek then filed a petition for review in the trial court, where a jury found in her favor, awarding her attorney's fees. The University of Texas System appealed, arguing the expert medical opinion on causation provided by Dr. William J. Rea was unreliable and legally insufficient evidence. The appellate court agreed, finding Dr. Rea's opinion was based on unfounded assumptions about continuous mold exposure and unreliable testing methods rejected by the scientific community. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and a take-nothing judgment was rendered in favor of The University of Texas System.

Occupational DiseaseMold ExposureExpert Witness TestimonyCausationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceReliability of Expert OpinionToxic TortAppellate LawTexas Labor CodeMedical Testing Standards
References
27
Case No. 03-03-00199-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2004

Valentine Cantu, Maria Padilla, Carolyn Chatham, Suzanne Hoog-Watson and George Denton v. Texas Workforce Commission and Employees Retirement System of Texas

This case, heard by the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, involves an appeal from a summary judgment in a suit alleging age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. Appellants, former employees of the Texas Workforce Commission, claimed they were terminated due to age and that the Employees Retirement System of Texas misinterpreted a government code section regarding early retirement benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's summary judgment, concluding that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination and that the Retirement System's interpretation of former government code section 814.1041(b) was correct. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying attorney's fees or excluding evidence.

Age discriminationSummary judgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActRetirement benefitsGovernment code interpretationStatutory constructionLegislative intentDisparate impactPretext methodPrima facie case
References
28
Case No. 10-01-183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2004

Michael Richards v. Texas A&M University System and Texas A&M University

Michael Richards, a maintenance worker, sued Texas A&M University System and Texas A&M University (TAMU) for wrongful termination, alleging retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. The trial court dismissed the suit based on sovereign immunity. Richards appealed, arguing that the Texas Workers' Compensation Act's waiver of governmental immunity for some state educational institutions but not others, specifically TAMU, violated his equal protection rights. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding a rational basis for the distinction, namely the self-insurance capabilities of TAMU, which justifies not waiving immunity for anti-retaliation suits against them. Thus, the court upheld the constitutionality of the statute.

Sovereign ImmunityWorkers' CompensationAnti-Retaliation LawEqual Protection ClauseConstitutional LawGovernmental ImmunityRational Basis ReviewSelf-InsuranceEmployment LawWrongful Termination
References
36
Case No. 03-05-00497-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2005

University of Texas System v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Mario O. Kapusta, M.D.

The appellant, University of Texas System, filed a motion to withdraw its appeal. The appellees, Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Mario O. Kapusta, M.D., stated they were unopposed to the motion. The court granted the motion and subsequently dismissed the appeal, citing Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a).

Texas Court of AppealsAppeal DismissalMotion to WithdrawWorkers' CompensationTravis CountyMemorandum Opinion
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 10,505 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