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. 01-10-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2011

Microcheck Systems. Inc v. Microcheck Systems, Inc., Chris Zigrossi, Scott Murphy, Mike Smith, Individually and D/B/A CMS Technology AKA CMS Technologies, Michoice Technology Systems, Inc., Jim Hayden, Alex Campbell and Jason Jablecki

Appellants MicroCheck Systems, Inc., MicroCheck Solutions, Inc., and John Manning challenged the trial court's denial of their motion to reinstate a case dismissed for want of prosecution. Their attorney, Scarlett May, failed to appear at a docket call due to a mistaken belief that she had been replaced by new counsel, Patrick Hubbard. The trial court denied the motion, stating a policy against missing docket calls. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by not applying the correct legal standard, which requires reinstatement if the failure to appear was due to accident or mistake and not conscious indifference. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case.

Dismissal for Want of ProsecutionMotion to ReinstateAbuse of DiscretionAttorney ErrorMistake of CounselConscious IndifferenceTexas Rules of Civil Procedure 165aAppellate ReviewSubstitution of CounselTrial Court Discretion
References
11
Case No. 01-19-00300-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2021

Michelle Hudson v. Memorial Hospital System

Michelle Hudson sued Memorial Hospital System, Memorial Hermann Health System, ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation, and C.B. Richard Ellis, Inc. for personal injuries sustained in a malfunctioning elevator on Memorial Hermann's property. Hudson, an employee of Memorial Hermann (a non-subscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act), alleged the defendants were negligent and liable under premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Hudson appealed, arguing the trial court incorrectly applied premises liability principles instead of ordinary negligence and that genuine issues of material fact existed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Hudson's claim against Memorial Hermann sounded exclusively in premises liability and she failed to preserve her argument. The court also found Hudson provided insufficient evidence to overcome the no-evidence summary judgment for CBRE and ThyssenKrupp.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityOrdinary NegligenceSummary JudgmentElevator AccidentWorkers' Compensation Non-subscriberEmployer DutyProperty Manager LiabilityMaintenance ServicesAppellate Review
References
44
Case No. 15-25-00011-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2025

The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, the University of Texas System, and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center v. Gensetix, Inc.

This document is Appellee Gensetix, Inc.'s brief in surreply to an appeal brought by The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, et al., before the Fifteenth Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas. Gensetix argues that the district court correctly denied the Appellants' plea to the jurisdiction. The core of Gensetix's argument centers on the Appellants' alleged abuse of Eleventh Amendment immunity, characterizing it as an unlawful 'Taking' of Gensetix's exclusive commercialization rights related to patents. The brief distinguishes the current case from Curadev Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. The Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. by highlighting the presence of disputed jurisdictional facts and the Appellants' invocation of sovereign power. Gensetix contends that the duration of the misappropriation is irrelevant to liability and asserts that some of the Appellants' arguments regarding contract interpretation are unpreserved. The appellee requests that the appellate court affirm the district court's decision.

Eleventh AmendmentSovereign ImmunityEminent DomainTakings ClausePatent LitigationIntellectual Property RightsCommercialization RightsJurisdictional PleaAppellate ProcedureTexas Courts
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weakley County Municipal Electric System v. Vick

The case involves an appeal by Kenneth Vick and members of Local Union Number 835, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, against an injunction prohibiting picketing of the Weakley County Municipal Electric System. The appeal challenged the constitutionality of the Municipal Electric Plant Law of 1935 as applied to Weakley County and the right of a municipal electric system to enter into collective bargaining agreements with a labor union. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding the constitutionality of the Act. It ruled that while a municipal electric system operates in a proprietary capacity, it remains a governmental agency and thus cannot lawfully enter into collective bargaining agreements with a labor union, making strikes and picketing for such purposes illegal.

Labor DisputeInjunctionPicketingCollective BargainingMunicipal CorporationGovernmental FunctionProprietary FunctionConstitutional LawCounty PowersPublic Employees
References
27
Case No. 05-20-00525-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2022

the University of Texas System v. Diane M. Bartek

Diane M. Bartek, an employee of The University of Texas System, filed a worker's compensation claim for an occupational disease caused by mold exposure. The Division of Worker's Compensation and its appeals panel denied her claim. Bartek then filed a petition for review in the trial court, where a jury found in her favor, awarding her attorney's fees. The University of Texas System appealed, arguing the expert medical opinion on causation provided by Dr. William J. Rea was unreliable and legally insufficient evidence. The appellate court agreed, finding Dr. Rea's opinion was based on unfounded assumptions about continuous mold exposure and unreliable testing methods rejected by the scientific community. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and a take-nothing judgment was rendered in favor of The University of Texas System.

Occupational DiseaseMold ExposureExpert Witness TestimonyCausationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceReliability of Expert OpinionToxic TortAppellate LawTexas Labor CodeMedical Testing Standards
References
27
Case No. 14-18-00896-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

City of Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner Controller Chris Brown Council Members Amy Peck, Tarsha Jackson, Abbie Kamin, Carolyn Evans-Shabazz, Dave Martin, Tiffany D. Thomas, Greg Travis, Karla Cisneros, Robert Gallegos, Edward Pollard, Martha Castex-Tatum, Mike Knox, David Robinson, Michael Kubosh, Letitia Plummer, and Sallie Alcorn And Director of Finance Tantri Emo v. Houston Municipal Employee Pension System Board Chairman Sherry Mose Board Vice-Chairman Lenard Polk Board Secretary Rhonda Smith And Board Trustees Roderick J. Newman, Roy W. Sanchez, Lonnie Vara, Barbara Chelette, Denise Castillo-Rhodes, David Donnelly, Edward J. Hamb II, and Adrian Patterson

This case is a continuation of a dispute between the Houston Municipal Employee Pension System and the City of Houston regarding statutorily required pension payments. The Pension System sought a writ of mandamus to compel the City to make these payments and asserted ultra vires claims against city officials. The City raised counterclaims and third-party claims, challenging the Pension System's standing and asserting governmental immunity. The trial court denied the City's plea to the jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for the Pension System. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, rejecting the City's arguments concerning independent contractors, 401(k) program eligibility, retrospective relief, contractual claims, and res judicata.

Governmental ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsPension SystemMunicipal EmployeesMandamusSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationTexas Constitutional LawAppellate ReviewEmployee Benefits
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Classen v. Irving Healthcare System

Carol Classen sued her former employer, Irving Healthcare System, alleging retaliatory discharge for pursuing workers’ compensation benefits, a claim prohibited by Texas law. Irving Healthcare System, a municipal hospital authority and governmental entity, asserted immunity from suit. The trial court and court of appeals sided with Irving Healthcare, concluding that governmental immunity had not been waived for such claims under article 8307c. However, citing a recent precedent set in *City of La Porte v. Barfield*, the Supreme Court of Texas determined that governmental immunity had been partially waived in wrongful discharge cases. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with *Barfield*.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsGovernmental ImmunityWaiver of ImmunityMunicipal Hospital AuthoritySummary JudgmentRemandTexas LawEmployer-Employee DisputeLabor Code
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fisher v. GE Medical Systems

Plaintiffs Mark Fisher and Chuck Floyd filed a collective action complaint against GE Medical Systems under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging improper compensation and overtime wages. Defendant GE Medical Systems filed a motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration and mediation. The court focused on the motion to compel mediation and found that the company's "RESOLVE Program," an internal dispute resolution process requiring mediation, constituted a binding agreement under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court rejected plaintiffs' arguments that mediation was inappropriate for FLSA claims and that the RESOLVE program lacked consent or consideration. Citing Tennessee contract law, the court ruled that the plaintiffs' continued employment and the mutual promises within the program served as sufficient consideration. Consequently, the defendant's motion to compel mediation was granted, and the case was stayed until the mediation process is completed.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Mandatory MediationEmployment LawFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Contract LawUnilateral ContractConsiderationCollective ActionOvertime WagesDispute Resolution
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1993

Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter

This case concerns a constitutional challenge to Tennessee's public school funding system, alleging violations of the education clause and equal protection provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. The plaintiffs, small school systems, superintendents, students, and parents, argued that disparities in funding led to unequal educational opportunities. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Tennessee, in this opinion, reversed the Court of Appeals, finding that the statutory funding scheme resulted in constitutionally impermissible disparities in educational opportunities and failed the "rational basis" test under equal protection provisions, despite arguments for local control. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, with the responsibility for fashioning a remedy left to the General Assembly.

Education FundingEqual ProtectionConstitutional LawPublic School SystemSchool Finance ReformDisparity in EducationState Supreme CourtJudicial ReviewLegislative PrerogativeLocal Control
References
42
Case No. 14-05-00111-CV; 14-05-00770-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2006

in Re Sonic Systems International Inc.

This consolidated opinion addresses two cases stemming from a workers' compensation dispute. Gary Cochran, an employee of Sonic Systems International, Inc., was injured in Alabama. Texas Mutual Insurance Co. (TMI), Sonic's carrier, denied coverage. Sonic made voluntary payments to Cochran, who subsequently recovered benefits under Alabama's workers' compensation laws. Sonic then sought reimbursement from TMI under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA), but this was denied by the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) and subsequently reversed by the trial court in Sonic's favor. TMI appealed this decision. Simultaneously, Sonic's contract claims against TMI were abated, leading Sonic to seek a writ of mandamus to lift the abatement. The appellate court held that Sonic's reimbursement claim was barred because Cochran's election to recover benefits under Alabama law also barred Sonic's derivative subclaim under the TWCA, reversing the trial court's judgment. Furthermore, the court found the trial court's continued abatement of Sonic's contract claims to be an abuse of discretion, as the jurisdictional prerequisites had been met and Sonic lacked an adequate remedy by appeal, and thus conditionally granted the writ of mandamus.

Workers' Compensation SubrogationElection of RemediesWrit of MandamusAbatement of ProceedingsBreach of ContractNegligence ClaimsDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Judicial ReviewConsolidated CasesExtra-Contractual Claims
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 1,596 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