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. 07-12-00207-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2013

Texas Workforce Commission and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. Elnora Moses

Elnora Moses was terminated from TCEQ for violating Return to Work Certification (RWC) conditions, specifically discussing sexual assault allegations with co-workers and failing to complete a required psychiatric evaluation. Her subsequent application for unemployment benefits was denied by the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). While the trial court reversed TWC's decision, the Court of Appeals, Seventh District of Texas, found substantial evidence supported the TWC's original denial. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and affirmed the TWC's denial of unemployment benefits to Moses.

Unemployment BenefitsWorkplace MisconductInsubordinationWorkplace SafetyPsychiatric EvaluationProbation ViolationTexas LawAppellate ReviewAgency DecisionSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Just Energy Texas I Corp. v. Texas Workforce Commission and Cedric Thomas

Just Energy Texas I Corp. appealed the dismissal of its suit against the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) and Cedric Thomas for lack of jurisdiction. Just Energy challenged the trial court's ruling that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The core issue revolved around whether Just Energy was 'aggrieved' by the TWC's decision reversing an initial denial of unemployment benefits to Thomas, thereby waiving TWC's sovereign immunity. The court concluded that Just Energy's potential future injuries, such as chargebacks or other claims, were not 'actual and immediate' losses required to be considered 'aggrieved' under the Texas Labor Code. Therefore, the Commission's sovereign immunity was not waived, and the trial court correctly dismissed the case for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityUnemployment BenefitsJudicial ReviewAggrieved PartySubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Labor CodeAdministrative RemediesIndependent Contractor
References
17
Case No. 03-03-00048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2003

Loretta Conly Bascom v. Texas Department of Human Services and Texas Workforce Commission

Loretta Conly Bascom, formerly employed by the Texas Department of Human Services, appealed the district court's affirmation of the Texas Workforce Commission's decision to deny her unemployment benefits. The Commission had concluded that Bascom was terminated for misconduct related to her handling of a client's eligibility for food stamps. On appeal, Bascom raised multiple issues, including the denial of a jury trial, alleged procedural errors, and challenges to credibility determinations. The appellate court found no merit in her arguments, concluding that the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that no reversible errors occurred during the district court proceedings. Consequently, the judgment affirming the denial of benefits was affirmed.

Employment TerminationUnemployment BenefitsMisconductJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceJury Trial RightPro Se LitigantAdministrative RecordCredibility DeterminationConflict of Interest
References
15
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. 03-05-00293-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2006

Derrick E. Pavelka v. Texas Workforce Commission and City of Austin, Texas Aviation Department

Derrick Pavelka appealed a district court's decision that upheld the Texas Workforce Commission's denial of unemployment benefits. Pavelka had been terminated from the City of Austin Aviation Department for falsifying his employment application. This falsification concerned a 1995 nolo contendere plea and deferred adjudication for unlawful weapon carrying, which rendered him ineligible for unescorted airport access under TSA regulations, a requirement for his job. Pavelka argued he believed the charge was dismissed and was unaware of the deferred adjudication status when completing the application. However, the Commission and the district court determined that his knowledge of community supervision and a fine was sufficient to apprise him of the deferred adjudication, concluding his actions constituted misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that Pavelka failed to demonstrate that the Commission's decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

Unemployment BenefitsMisconduct TerminationFalsified Employment ApplicationDeferred AdjudicationNolo Contendere PleaCriminal History CheckTSA RegulationsAirport SecuritySubstantial Evidence ReviewProcedural Due Process
References
13
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. 07-15-00113-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2016

Mohammed Fawwaz Shoukfeh, M.D., P.A., D/B/A Texas Cardiac Center v. James G. Grattan and Texas Workforce Commission

Dr. Grattan filed a wage claim against Mohammed Fawwaz Shoukfeh, M.D., P.A., d/b/a Texas Cardiac Center (TCC) under the Texas Payday Act, alleging miscalculation of his pro rata share of overhead expenses. The dispute arose because TCC included Dr. Qaddour's salary in overhead but excluded him from the pro rata division among physicians for expense calculation. After various appeals, the Texas Workforce Commission ultimately awarded Dr. Grattan $125,988.81 in unpaid wages. TCC then sought a trial de novo, where the 99th District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Grattan and the TWC. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was substantial evidence that Dr. Grattan's employment agreement did not permit TCC to deduct more than a pro rata share based on all physicians employed.

Wage claimTexas Payday ActEmployment agreementOverhead expensesPro rata shareSummary judgmentAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceContract interpretationPhysician compensation
References
23
Case No. 03-03-00435-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission/East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery And Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. v. East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery/Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case involves the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission's failure to establish fee guidelines for ambulatory surgical centers under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. East Side Surgical Center, Clinic for Special Surgery, and intervenor Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. (collectively "East Side") sued the Commission to invalidate certain default rules that applied when specific guidelines were absent. The district court declared one rule (133.304(i)) invalid and enjoined its enforcement, citing unlawful delegation of authority. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment regarding the rule's invalidity and dissolved the injunction, citing a Texas Supreme Court decision finding no unlawful delegation. The court affirmed that East Side was not entitled to its usual and customary fee in the absence of specific guidelines.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawDelegation of AuthorityRulemakingAmbulatory Surgical CentersJudicial ReviewInsurance CarrierFee GuidelinesFair and Reasonable RatesStatutory Interpretation
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workforce Commission v. Wichita County

This appeal examines whether an employee on federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave can simultaneously receive unemployment benefits under the Texas Labor Code. The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) appealed a trial court's decision that denied unemployment benefits to Julia White, who was on unpaid FMLA leave from Wichita County for depression and anxiety. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that FMLA, intended for job security, and state unemployment benefits, meant for those able and seeking new work, are mutually exclusive. The court concluded that interpreting the statutes to allow concurrent benefits would be unreasonable, thwarting legislative intent as both laws serve distinct purposes.

Family and Medical Leave ActFMLAUnemployment BenefitsTexas Labor CodeJob SecurityIncome SecurityEmployment RelationshipMedical LeaveTexas Workforce CommissionWichita County
References
17
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
Showing 1-10 of 6,077 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