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. 15-25-00028-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2025

Texas State University and Texas State University System v. Stuart Patrick Wilkinson

This case involves an expedited appeal concerning a Texas Whistleblower Act proceeding and free-speech retaliation claims. Appellee Stuart Patrick Wilkinson, a public employee, reported potential illegal software licensing and evidence spoliation by Appellants, Texas State University and Texas State University System, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Internal Audit Office. Following these whistleblower reports, Appellee alleges he suffered various adverse personnel actions, including denied promotions, reduced pay, and a hostile work environment, leading him to file suit after exhausting administrative remedies. The trial court denied the Appellants' plea to the jurisdiction, and Appellee requests the appellate court to affirm this denial, arguing his claims are not barred by sovereign immunity and his petition is sufficient.

Expedited AppealTexas Whistleblower ActFree Speech RetaliationSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionPublic EmployeeAdverse Personnel ActionAdministrative RemediesTexas Government Code Chapter 554First Amendment
References
20
Case No. 09-24-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2026

Universal Protection Service, LP D/B/A Allied Universal Security and Universal Protection Service GP, Inc. v. the Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC

Universal Protection Services, LP d/b/a Allied Universal Security (Allied) and The Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC (TWM) were parties to a Security Agreement. A patron, Penny Prater, sued both Allied and TWM, along with other entities, for negligence after a robbery in the mall parking lot, alleging failures in security services and training. Allied and TWM filed competing motions for summary judgment regarding Allied's contractual duty to defend TWM, which Allied had refused. The trial court granted summary judgment for TWM, finding that Allied had a duty to defend TWM based on the Agreement's terms and Illinois law. Allied appealed this decision, arguing the contract's indemnification provision did not require it to defend TWM for TWM's own alleged negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the contractual provision clearly required Allied to defend TWM when the alleged acts of negligence or failures resulted from its provision of security services.

Contract InterpretationDuty to DefendIndemnification AgreementSecurity ServicesNegligence ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois Contract LawTexas Civil ProcedureBreach of Contract
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palmer v. State University of New York Upstate Medical University

The claimant, an orthopedic hand surgeon, developed cervical radiculopathy and degenerative disc disease due to the physical strain of performing hand surgery and filed for workers' compensation benefits. His claim was controverted by the State University of New York Upstate Medical University and its carrier, as well as the Research Foundation of New York and its carrier. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that the claimant was a dual employee of both the University and the Foundation and that his condition constituted a causally related occupational disease. The University and its carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's findings, concluding there was substantial evidence to support both the dual employment status and the existence of a recognizable link between the claimant's condition and the distinctive features of his occupation.

Occupational DiseaseCervical RadiculopathyDegenerative Disc DiseaseDual EmploymentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsHand Surgery StrainMedical OpinionAppellate ReviewCausationEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. 14-14-00097-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2015

Vicki Ward v. Lamar University, Texas State University System and James Simmons

Vicki Ward sued Lamar University and the Texas State University System for whistleblower retaliation and constitutional violations after reporting suspicious financial transactions. Ward alleged adverse personnel actions, including reduced responsibilities and supervision, following the leak of her report. The trial court dismissed her claims based on a plea to the jurisdiction and sua sponte. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of whistleblower claims against the Texas State University System but reversed the dismissal against Lamar University, citing factual disputes regarding adverse action and grievance initiation. Furthermore, the court largely reversed the sua sponte dismissal of Ward's constitutional claims against both entities, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationPlea to JurisdictionAdverse Personnel ActionTexas ConstitutionFree SpeechDue ProcessEqual ProtectionGovernmental ImmunityPublic Employee
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1995

Brier v. City University

The respondent City University of New York's determination, dated August 13, 1995, to dismiss the petitioner from his role as Administrative Superintendent of Campus Buildings and Grounds at Lehman College, effective September 8, 1995, was unanimously confirmed. The petition was denied, and the CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred from the Supreme Court, New York County, was dismissed. The court found that respondent's conclusions regarding the petitioner's failure to report lost keys, ensure proper facility cleaning and maintenance, and general incompetence were supported by substantial evidence, including testimony from the petitioner, superiors, and co-workers. No grounds were found to overturn the respondent's credibility assessments, and the penalty of dismissal was deemed appropriate, especially considering the petitioner's prior disciplinary history.

Public EmploymentAdministrative LawEmployee MisconductWorkplace DisciplineJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingLehman CollegeCity University of New YorkTermination of EmploymentSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. 03-11-00596-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2012

the University of Texas System v. Gloria G. Ochoa

Gloria Ochoa, an employee of The University of Texas System, was injured and sought disability benefits. An administrative hearing officer concluded she was disabled. The University sought judicial review but later non-suited its claims. Ochoa moved for attorney's fees, but the University filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity. The district court denied the plea. Citing the precedent set in Manbeck v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., the appellate court reversed the district court's order, holding that the University, as a state agency, is immune from claims for attorney's fees under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. The court rendered judgment dismissing Ochoa's claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationSovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityAttorney's FeesJudicial ReviewPlea to JurisdictionTexas LawState AgencySelf-InsuredAppellate Procedure
References
9
Case No. E2012-02664-COA-R9-CV-FILED-JANUARY 16, 2014
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2014

Lisa Womble v. University Health System, Inc. d/b/a University of Tennessee Regional Medical Center

This case originated from an employment action filed by Lisa Womble, a nurse, after her termination from the University of Tennessee Regional Medical Center, which was operated by University Health System, Inc. (UHS), a private nonprofit corporation. Womble, classified as a 'leased' employee, retained certain university benefits. The trial court sua sponte ruled Tennessee Code Annotated section 49-9-112(a), the statute governing leased employees, unconstitutional, prompting an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court examined whether the statute constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority or an unconstitutional lending of the State's credit. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's determination, affirming the constitutionality of the statute and remanding the case for further proceedings.

employment lawconstitutional lawstate employeesleased employeeslegislative delegationlending of state creditpublic purposedue processadministrative procedureswrongful termination
References
26
Case No. M2006-02212-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2008

Universal Outdoor, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Transportation

This case concerns Universal Outdoor, Inc.'s challenge against the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) regarding the removal and relocation of a billboard. TDOT ordered the removal of a pre-existing billboard for highway expansion, and Universal Outdoor moved it to a new location within its leasehold. However, TDOT refused to renew the permit or issue a new one, citing non-compliance with the Tennessee Billboard Regulation and Control Act of 1972 due to the relocation of a non-conforming sign. The administrative law judge and the chancery court affirmed TDOT's decision. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the chancery court's decision, ruling that the billboard's relocation nullified its 'grandfathered' status under the Billboard Act and its associated regulations, despite Universal Outdoor's arguments regarding municipal zoning laws and inverse condemnation. The court found TDOT's actions were consistent with federal and state statutes, and that Universal Outdoor had already been compensated for relocation costs, thus no unconstitutional taking occurred.

Billboard RegulationZoning LawNon-conforming UseAdministrative LawTakings ClauseInverse CondemnationProperty RightsHighway Beautification ActState Statute InterpretationAppellate Review
References
34
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. 15-25-00038-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2025

University of Texas at Arlington v. James McMerchant

The University of Texas at Arlington (Appellant) appeals the denial of its Plea to the Jurisdiction regarding James McMerchant's (Appellee) Title VII claim. McMerchant alleged race discrimination, claiming he was promoted in 2017 but did not receive a corresponding pay raise and title change until 2020, while a younger Caucasian colleague in a similar role received immediate higher pay. The University argues that McMerchant failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not filing his EEOC charge within the statutory 300-day period. It contends that the continuing violation doctrine is inapplicable to his claims, asserting that the alleged acts in 2017 and 2019 were discrete incidents. The University seeks to reverse the trial court's judgment, arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to McMerchant's procedural failures.

DiscriminationRace DiscriminationTitle VIIAdministrative RemediesExhaustion of RemediesPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityContinuing Violation DoctrineEmployment LawAppellate Brief
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 6,207 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