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. 03-01-00215-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2002

Patient Advocates of Texas and Allen J. Meril, M.D. v. Texas Workers Compensation Commission Leonard Riley, Executive Director And State of Texas

This case concerns a challenge brought by Patient Advocates of Texas and Allen J. Meril, M.D., against the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and the State of Texas. The challenge targeted the validity and enforcement of Commission rules, specifically the Medical Fee Guideline (Rule 134.201) and the Dispute and Audit Rules (Rules 133.300-.305). Advocates contended that the Guideline was procedurally and substantively invalid, and that the Dispute and Audit Rules improperly delegated auditing powers to private insurance carriers and imposed an unlawful statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed the Guideline's fee caps and the one-year statute of limitations but reversed the trial court's judgment, declaring the delegation of auditing powers to private insurance carriers invalid.

Workers' Compensation ActMedical Fee GuidelinesAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Rule-making proceduresDelegation of authorityPrivate insurance carriersAuditing powersStatute of limitationsConstitutional challengeDue process
References
15
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Board

The Texas Association of Business (TAB) filed a declaratory judgment action against the Texas Air Control Board and the Texas Water Commission, challenging the constitutionality of statutes allowing these agencies to levy civil penalties. Specifically, TAB argued that provisions requiring a supersedeas bond or cash deposit for judicial review violated the open courts and jury trial provisions of the Texas Constitution. The trial court denied TAB's relief. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the trial court's decision regarding the jury trial challenge, concluding that no right to a jury trial exists for appeals from administrative environmental adjudications. However, the Court reversed the trial court on the open courts challenge, holding that mandating a bond or cash deposit as a prerequisite to judicial review was an unreasonable and unconstitutional restriction on court access.

Constitutional LawAdministrative LawStandingJudicial ReviewOpen Courts ProvisionJury Trial RightEnvironmental LawCivil PenaltiesTexas ConstitutionSeparation of Powers
References
91
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. 03-02-00611-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2003

Texas Building Owners and Managers Association, Inc. Building Owners and Managers Association International Tanglewood Property Management Company Emissary Group 5599 San Felipe, Ltd. And the Real Access Alliance v. the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the State of Texas

This case concerns the scope of the Public Utility Commission's power to enforce the Building Access Statutes (Texas Utilities Code §§ 54.259-.261). Appellants, consisting of property management organizations and trade groups, sued the Commission, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Statutes are unconstitutional on their face and a permanent injunction. They argued the statutes cause a taking of their property without adequate compensation and that the Commission lacks delegated power to determine compensation. The district court declared the Statutes facially constitutional and denied injunctive relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the legislature constitutionally delegated to the Commission the power to determine 'reasonable' and 'nondiscriminatory' compensation, providing sufficient guidance and an adequate process for obtaining compensation.

Telecommunications regulationPublic Utility CommissionBuilding Access StatutesConstitutional lawTakings clauseDelegation of powerProperty rightsTelecommunications utilitiesCompetitive marketplaceFacial unconstitutionality
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Logos, L.P. v. Texas Department of Transportation

Texas Logos, L.P. sued the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) after losing a contract for highway logo signs to Media Choice. Texas Logos alleged TxDOT exceeded its statutory authority by violating procurement statutes, including instances of fraud and conflicts of interest, and sought declarations under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) to void the contract and compel a contested-case proceeding for its protest. Texas Logos also challenged TxDOT's administrative protest rules under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). TxDOT filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity. The district court granted TxDOT's plea, dismissing Texas Logos's claims against TxDOT. On appeal, the court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that sovereign immunity barred Texas Logos's UDJA claims as they sought to invalidate an existing contract and control state action, which falls outside the scope of merely construing statutory authority. The court also affirmed the dismissal of APA claims regarding the protest rules, deeming them an abstract issue.

Sovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionAdministrative LawDeclaratory Judgment ActProcurement LawCompetitive BiddingStatutory AuthorityUltra ViresContract DisputeGovernment Contracts
References
52
Case No. 08-70200
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Architectural Aggregate, Inc. v. ACM-Texas, LLC (In re ACM-Texas, Inc.)

This case concerns a protracted dispute between Texas Architectural Aggregate, Inc. (TAA) and Applied Chemical Magnesias Corporation (ACM) and ACM-Texas, LLC, over mineral mining rights in Culberson County, Texas. TAA filed various claims including breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion, and trespass, while ACM counter-claimed for similar issues. The Court deemed the initial 1999 Letter Agreement unenforceable due to a lack of material terms and non-compliance with the statute of frauds. Ultimately, TAA was awarded $7,125,073.08 for ACM's unjust enrichment, conversion, and trespass related to unlawfully mined materials. ACM, in turn, received $75,000 in reliance damages under promissory estoppel for the construction of a mill, with all other claims and counterclaims denied.

Mining DisputeMineral RightsContract DisputeUnjust EnrichmentPromissory EstoppelConversionTrespassBankruptcy Adversary ProceedingLetter Agreement EnforceabilityFraud Claims
References
13
Case No. 03-06-00257-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2009

Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Texas v. GameTech International, Inc. Anthony J. Sadberry, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Lottery Commission And Texas Lottery Commission

Greg Abbott, as Attorney General of Texas, appealed a summary judgment that deemed settlement letters between GameTech International, Inc., and the Texas Lottery Commission exempt from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA). The Attorney General contended that no other law rendered these communications confidential. The appellate court examined whether the confidentiality provisions of the Governmental Dispute Resolution Act and the civil practice and remedies code applied to informal settlement negotiations. It concluded that these statutes only cover communications made within statutorily defined alternative dispute resolution procedures, which the exchanged settlement offers were not. Furthermore, the court found no common-law privilege protecting settlement negotiations or a corporate right to privacy. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's judgment, ruling that the settlement letters are not exempt from PIA disclosure requirements.

Public Information ActOpen Records RequestSettlement NegotiationsConfidentiality ExceptionStatutory ConstructionGovernmental Dispute ResolutionAlternative Dispute ResolutionCorporate Right to PrivacySummary Judgment AppealTexas Court of Appeals
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 8,222 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