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. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Thomas Jones, currently incarcerated, filed an Article 78 proceeding to vacate the denial of his FOIL request by the District Attorney’s Office of the County of New York (DANY). Jones sought a trial verdict sheet from his 2000 conviction for conspiracy and assault. DANY denied the request, stating Judiciary Law § 255, which Jones cited, applies only to court clerks, not district attorneys. The court affirmed DANY's denial, ruling that district attorneys are not clerks of the court, and also found Jones's claims to be time-barred under the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. The petition was consequently denied and dismissed with prejudice.

FOIL RequestVerdict SheetArticle 78 ProceedingStatute of LimitationsDistrict AttorneyCourt ClerkJudiciary LawPenal LawCriminal ConspiracyAssault
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Justice O’Neill dissents from the Court's decision, arguing that compliance with non-statutory administrative deadlines should not be a jurisdictional prerequisite for filing suit in cases like McCarty's. McCarty, an employee of Van Independent School District, sued for unlawful termination under the Texas Labor Code chapter 451 after filing a grievance with the Board of Trustees, albeit untimely. O'Neill asserts that McCarty exhausted his administrative remedies by requesting a hearing and a waiver of the deadline, and that the purpose of the exhaustion doctrine was met as the Board considered his grievance. The dissent distinguishes this case from Wilmer-Hutchins Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Sullivan, where the plaintiff failed to invoke grievance procedures entirely. O'Neill concludes that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over McCarty’s retaliatory discharge claim.

Jurisdictional PrerequisitesAdministrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrineRetaliatory DischargeTexas Labor CodeSchool District EmploymentGrievance ProceduresStatutory InterpretationWaiver of DeadlinesSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. 03-21-00120-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2022

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Christopher Wise, a former Austin Police Academy cadet, sued Brian Manley (APD Chief) and six other APD officers after sustaining severe injuries, including heat exhaustion and stroke, during a stress reaction training in October 2018. Wise alleged that officers intentionally discouraged cadets from hydrating despite high temperatures and failed to provide timely medical aid. The defendants sought dismissal under the Texas Tort Claims Act's election-of-remedies provisions. The district court dismissed claims against the City of Austin and APD but not against the individual officers. The appellate court reversed the district court's decision, ruling that Wise's claims against the individual officers were based on conduct within the scope of their employment and could have been brought under the TTCA, thus mandating their dismissal.

Texas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityElection of RemediesScope of EmploymentPolice MisconductCadet InjuryHeat IllnessSupervisor NegligenceAppellate CourtReversal
References
25
Case No. ADJ9258192 (Van Nuys District Office) ADJ1460512 (NOR 0187897) (Los Angeles District Office) ADJ3082172 (MON 0248019) (Marina del Rey District Office)
Regular
Jul 10, 2015

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

In this workers' compensation case, the Applicant Thomas Senczakiewicz sought reconsideration of a decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted reconsideration to allow further study of the factual and legal issues involved. This means the previous decision is vacated, and the WCAB will review the case further to issue a just decision. All future correspondence related to the petition must be filed directly with the WCAB's Commissioners' office in San Francisco.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionFurther ProceedingsOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Trial Level DocumentsProposed Settlement
References
0
Case No. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Scott A. McCarty, a maintenance employee, was terminated by Van Independent School District (VISD) after sustaining a work-related injury. He filed a wrongful termination suit under the Texas Labor Code, alleging retaliatory discharge. VISD filed a plea to the jurisdiction, contending McCarty failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not appealing to the State Commissioner of Education. The school board had initially denied McCarty's grievance, citing an untimely request, but also considered the merits. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of VISD's plea, ruling that McCarty had exhausted local administrative remedies by appealing to the school board. The court further held that McCarty's claim, pertaining to retaliatory discharge, did not fall under the 'school laws of this state' as defined in the Education Code, thus negating the requirement for an appeal to the Commissioner of Education.

Workers' CompensationWrongful TerminationRetaliatory DischargeAdministrative RemediesPlea to JurisdictionJudicial ReviewSchool DistrictExhaustion of RemediesTexas Labor CodeEducation Code
References
26
Case No. 03-18-00243-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2018

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Leander Independent School District (LISD) appealed a district court's judgment compelling the disclosure of its "Complaints Document" to a news reporter under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA). LISD argued the document was protected by exceptions including deliberative process, work product, constitutional and common law privacy, and litigation anticipation. The appellate court, reviewing de novo, determined the document contained purely factual information, not protected by deliberative process or work product privileges. It also found LISD failed to establish constitutional or common law privacy rights applied, or that litigation was reasonably anticipated. Consequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the requirement for LISD to release the information.

Public Information ActOpen Records RequestGovernment TransparencyDeliberative Process PrivilegeWork Product PrivilegeConstitutional PrivacyCommon Law PrivacyLitigation AnticipationSummary JudgmentDeclaratory Judgment
References
69
Case No. 03-01-00491-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Four Texas school districts, led by West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District, appealed the dismissal of their action seeking a declaratory judgment that the state's school finance system is unconstitutional. The districts contended that the $1.50 tax cap had become a de facto floor, forcing them to tax at the maximum allowable rate to provide education, thereby constituting an unconstitutional state ad valorem tax. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the districts failed to state a viable cause of action because they did not allege they were forced to tax at the cap specifically to provide the constitutionally-mandated 'accredited education.' The court also found the claim unripe, emphasizing that the focus should be on whether the state's requirements forced a lack of meaningful discretion in setting tax rates for an accredited education, not on a desired level of education or the number of districts taxing at the cap.

School Finance ReformConstitutional ChallengeAd Valorem TaxationEducation FundingDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineTexas Constitution Article VII, Section 1Texas Constitution Article VIII, Section 1-eProperty Tax Cap
References
30
Case No. 03-17-00352-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2018

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case involves cross-appeals stemming from a dispute over the appropriate reimbursement for medical services provided by Vista Medical Center Hospital and its affiliates to injured employees covered by the State Office of Risk Management (SORM) under Texas workers’ compensation statutes. The district court had affirmed 23 administrative orders that required SORM to make additional payments to Vista, a decision which SORM challenged on appeal citing insufficient evidence. Vista, in turn, cross-appealed the district court's denial of prejudgment interest. The appellate court found substantial evidence supported the administrative law judges' conclusion that SORM's original reimbursement model was unfair and unreasonable, and that Vista's proposed methodology was valid. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's judgment but modified it to include the prejudgment interest that Vista was statutorily entitled to.

Workers' CompensationMedical ReimbursementAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePrejudgment InterestTexas LawHealthcare ProvidersInsurance DisputesFee Guidelines
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 7,621 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