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. 03-13-00077-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. 03-00-00370-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. 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. 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. 03-14-00801-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. 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. 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

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. 03-97-00567-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 1998

Memorial Medical Center of East Texas v. James A. Howard, Special Deputy Receiver of Texas Employers' Insurance Association and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association

Memorial Medical Center of East Texas appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of James A. Howard, Special Deputy Receiver of Texas Employers' Insurance Association, and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association. Memorial sought a declaration that the appellees were obligated to reimburse defense costs incurred in a separate suit brought by its employees. The trial court granted the appellees' motions for summary judgment without specifying the grounds. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that both the Receiver and the Association were statutorily precluded from defending Memorial or reimbursing its defense costs under relevant provisions of the Texas Insurance Code.

Summary judgmentInsurance CodeDuty to defendReimbursementImpaired insurerReceivershipGuaranty AssociationAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationWorkers' compensation insurance
References
11
Case No. 03-05-00620-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2008

Texas Orthopaedic Association, Texas Medical Association and Andrew M. Kant, M.D. v. Texas State Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners Texas Podiatric Medical Association And Bruce A. Scudday, D.P.M.

The Texas Orthopaedic Association and others challenged a rule by the Texas State Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners that defined 'foot' to include portions of the ankle and soft tissues extending into the leg. Appellants argued this rule impermissibly expanded the scope of podiatry beyond its statutory definition and intruded into the practice of medicine. The district court initially found the rule valid. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the Board exceeded its authority. The appellate court concluded that the rule's expansive definition authorized podiatrists to treat anatomical features located well above the traditional foot and ankle, which is inconsistent with the occupations code and constitutes an unauthorized practice of medicine.

Podiatry ScopeRegulatory AuthorityStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Rule ValidityMedical Practice ActTexas Occupations CodeDeclaratory JudgmentAnkle TreatmentFoot DefinitionMedical Licensing Board
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 9,851 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