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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lowrey v. University of Texas Medical Branch

Chief Justice Osborn's concurring opinion addresses a case of first impression concerning Mr. Lowery's recovery from UTMB for a compensable injury under the Workers' Compensation Act. The central issue is whether a settlement agreement, potentially obtained through fraud, can be set aside, particularly when state immunity is involved. Justice Osborn argues for a liberal interpretation of the Act, asserting that the state's immunity should not prevent a state employee from seeking full recovery or from rescinding a fraudulent settlement, thereby ensuring equal opportunity for justice regardless of employment type.

Workers' Compensation ActFraudulent SettlementState ImmunityStatutory InterpretationCompensable InjuryRecovery of BenefitsConcurring OpinionLiberal InterpretationRescissionIncapacity
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dalehite v. Nauta

Virginia Dalehite died shortly after an operation by Dr. Nauta, a neurosurgeon, for treatment of a cerebral aneurysm. Her family, the Dalehites, sued Dr. Nauta and the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB) for wrongful death. The trial court granted UTMB’s plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity. Dr. Nauta then moved for summary judgment, arguing that the judgment in favor of UTMB, a governmental unit, bars any action against him as its employee under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code § 101.106. The Dalehites challenged Dr. Nauta's status as a UTMB employee. However, the appellate court found that the undisputed summary judgment evidence established Dr. Nauta was an employee of UTMB. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding Dr. Nauta entitled to governmental immunity.

Governmental ImmunityEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentTexas Tort Claims ActMedical MalpracticeNeurosurgeryHospital LiabilityUTMB
References
18
Case No. NO. 14-00-00976-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

Henry Dalehite, Individually and as Independent of Virginia Dalehite Estate, Ellen Dalehite Wedell, Anne Dalehit Slitter, Charles R. Dalehite, and Henry Dalehit, III v. Haring J. Nauta, M.D.

The Appellants, the Dalehites, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Appellee Dr. Haring J. Nauta. The case stemmed from a wrongful death suit after Virginia Dalehite's death following an operation by Dr. Nauta. The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB), initially a co-defendant, was dismissed due to governmental immunity. Dr. Nauta claimed immunity as a UTMB employee under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Dr. Nauta was an employee of UTMB based on his contractual agreement, salary, benefits, and role as chairman of neurosurgery. The argument that Dr. Nauta was an independent contractor because UTMB did not control medical details was rejected, upholding his entitlement to governmental immunity.

Governmental ImmunitySummary JudgmentEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorWrongful DeathMedical MalpracticeTexas Tort Claims ActAppellate ProcedureNeurosurgeon LiabilityUniversity System
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Villasan v. O'ROURKE

This case of first impression interprets section 101.106(e) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The O’Rourkes sued Dr. Antonio Villasan, an employee of the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston (UTMB), and UTMB itself, alleging medical negligence. UTMB filed a motion to dismiss Dr. Villasan, as mandated by the statute, but the O’Rourkes subsequently amended their petition to remove UTMB as a party. Dr. Villasan's motion to dismiss was denied by the trial court. The appellate court reversed, holding that the government's filing of a motion to dismiss irrevocably obligates the trial court to dismiss its employee, regardless of later amended pleadings. The court also affirmed the prospective application of the statute and found no violation of the open courts provision of the Texas Constitution.

Texas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityOfficial ImmunityElection of RemediesStatutory InterpretationProcedural LawAppellate ReviewMedical MalpracticeCivil Practice and Remedies CodeHouse Bill Four
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 1999

University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston v. Hohman

This opinion on rehearing addresses appeals from University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), Dr. William Mileski, and Martha Shelver, challenging denials of jurisdictional pleas and summary judgments against whistleblowing nurses, Stephanie Hohman and Lisa Lippert. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of sovereign immunity for UTMB on the nurses' Whistleblower Act claims, ruling that constructive discharge constitutes termination and administrative remedies were met. However, claims under the Nurse Reporting Act against UTMB and Shelver in her official capacity were dismissed due to a lack of clear sovereign immunity waiver. Similarly, claims for intentional torts and wrongful discharge against Mileski and Shelver in their official capacities were dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds. Claims against Mileski and Shelver in their individual capacities were reversed and remanded, citing a remaining question of fact regarding their good faith.

Whistleblower ActSovereign ImmunityOfficial ImmunityRetaliationConstructive DischargeNurse Reporting ActIntentional TortsWrongful DischargeSummary JudgmentPlea to Jurisdiction
References
29
Case No. 09-01-496 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2002

the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston v. Terry Savoy

Terry Savoy sued her employer, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB), for wrongful termination, alleging violations of the anti-retaliation provision in the Texas Workers' Compensation Act and the Texas Whistleblowers' Act. The trial court initially denied UTMB's plea to the jurisdiction on the workers' compensation claim but granted it for the whistleblower claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that sovereign immunity was not waived for claims under Labor Code § 411.083 against the University of Texas System, reversing the trial court's decision on that claim. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the whistleblower claim, finding that Savoy failed to exhaust the mandatory administrative appeal procedures. Consequently, the entire cause was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityWrongful TerminationWorkers' Compensation ActWhistleblowers' ActAnti-retaliationJurisdictionAdministrative ExhaustionAppellate ProcedureLabor LawGovernmental Immunity
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bates v. University of Texas Medical Branch

This case involves seven plaintiffs who sued the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) and Leon Clements, alleging employment discrimination based on gender, race, age, and disability, retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants filed motions for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, asserting sovereign immunity and qualified immunity, and arguing that the plaintiffs' claims lacked merit. The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing with prejudice all claims against UTMB and Clements, including those under Title VII (age, punitive damages), §§ 1981 and 1983, ADA, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their pleading was also denied, leaving only certain Title VII claims for further proceedings.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimsFirst Amendment RightsSovereign ImmunityQualified ImmunityIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressTitle VII Civil Rights ActSection 1983 ClaimsADA ClaimsAge Discrimination in Employment Act
References
42
Case No. NO. 14-17-00084-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2018

Elizabeth Protas v. University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, David Callender, M.D. Individually and in His Official Capacity, and Danny Jacobs, M.D., Individually and in His Official Capacity

Dr. Elizabeth Protas, a tenured professor at The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB), filed suit against UTMB and two individual doctors after being ordered to attend a course, suspended without pay, and deemed ineligible for an incentive plan. The trial court dismissed claims against the individual doctors and granted a plea to the jurisdiction for all claims, citing sovereign immunity. Protas appealed, raising issues regarding discovery denial, election of remedies under the Texas Tort Claims Act, due process violations, discrimination claims under the TCHRA, and a claim for declaratory judgment. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of individual claims and the plea to the jurisdiction for due process and declaratory judgment claims but reversed and remanded the discrimination claims, allowing Protas an opportunity to amend her pleadings.

Employment DiscriminationSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionDue ProcessDeclaratory JudgmentTexas Tort Claims ActUltra Vires ClaimTexas Commission on Human Rights ActAppellate ReviewGovernmental Immunity
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

University of Texas System v. Letitia Thomas

Letitia Thomas, a University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) employee, was injured on July 22, 2011, while traveling to work on a shuttle bus provided by the City of Galveston, d/b/a Island Transit, from a UTMB-owned parking lot. The Division of Workers' Compensation deemed her injury compensable, ordering the University of Texas System (UT), her employer's workers' compensation insurer, to pay benefits. UT sought judicial review, and the trial court denied UT's summary judgment motion while granting Thomas's. On appeal, Thomas argued the trial court's judgment was void due to UT's failure to notify the Division of a proposed judgment, as mandated by Labor Code section 410.258(a). The appellate court agreed, affirming that compliance with this section is jurisdictional, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationAppellate JurisdictionSummary JudgmentLabor Code 410.258Void JudgmentNotice RequirementSovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityCourse and Scope of EmploymentTexas Law
References
11
Case No. 09-04-409 CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2005

Antonio J. Villasan, M.D. v. William O'Rourke, Individually Laura O'Rourke, Individually and Laura O'Rourke A/N/F of Brock O'Rourke

This case addresses an appeal by Dr. Antonio Villasan concerning the denial of his motion to dismiss from a medical negligence lawsuit. William and Laura O'Rourke sued Dr. Villasan and the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) for an alleged failure to diagnose cancer. The central legal question involved the interpretation of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 101.106(e), which mandates the dismissal of governmental employees when the governmental unit files such a motion. The Court found that UTMB's motion to dismiss created an irrevocable right to dismiss Dr. Villasan, a right not nullified by the O'Rourkes' subsequent amended pleadings. Additionally, the Court determined that a previously filed federal suit did not negate the applicability of the amended state statute and rejected arguments concerning open courts violations and retroactivity. Consequently, the trial court's order denying Dr. Villasan's dismissal was reversed, and judgment was rendered in his favor, dismissing the claims.

Texas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityOfficial ImmunityElection of RemediesProcedural LawStatutory InterpretationCivil Practice and Remedies CodeMedical MalpracticeDismissalAppellate Procedure
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 12 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