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
Mar 22, 2006

City of Waco v. Williams

This case concerns an interlocutory appeal regarding the City of Waco's plea to the jurisdiction in a wrongful death lawsuit. The plaintiffs, children of Robert Earl Williams, Sr., sued the city under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA), alleging negligence after police officers repeatedly used Tasers on their father, resulting in his death. The central issue was whether the TTCA's intentional-tort exception to sovereign immunity applied. The court determined that the plaintiffs' claims, despite being framed as negligence, inherently alleged an intentional tort (assault) due to the officers' intentional use of Tasers to cause injury. Consequently, sovereign immunity was not waived, and the trial court's denial of the plea was reversed, leading to the dismissal of the case against the City of Waco, with claims for negligent policy implementation and training also failing.

Sovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActIntentional Tort ExceptionPolice MisconductExcessive ForceTaser UseWrongful DeathAppellate ReviewPlea to JurisdictionNegligent Training
References
30
Case No. E2000-00159-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2000

U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty v. Waco Contractors, Inc.

This case addresses a dispute between U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty, an insurance company, and WACO Contractors, Inc., an employer, regarding workers' compensation insurance premiums. WACO Contractors had indicated an intent to exclude corporate officers from coverage in their application, and premiums were initially assessed accordingly. However, a subsequent audit by the insurance company resulted in a back-assessment of premiums, arguing that the statutory procedures for officer exclusion were not properly followed. The Court of Appeals found that the insurance company possessed superior knowledge of these statutory requirements and failed to adequately inform the employer of the necessary steps to effectuate their expressed intent. The court also clarified that the relevant workers' compensation statutes primarily concern employee rights and remedies, not contractual disputes over insurance premiums, and that the insurance agent acted as the agent for the insurer. Consequently, the Trial Court's judgment in favor of the insurance company was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceCorporate Officer ExclusionPremium DisputeStatutory InterpretationAgency LawInsurance ContractsNotice RequirementAppellate ReviewRemedial StatuteEquitable Construction
References
14
Case No. 10-02-00026-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2004

Providence Health Center A/K/A Daughters of Charity Health Services of Waco And DePaul Center A/K/A Daughters of Charity Health Services of Waco v. Jimmy and Carolyn Dowell, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Jonathan Lance Dowell

This is a dissenting opinion in an appeal of a wrongful death and survival suit. The appellants, Providence Health Center and DePaul Center, argued there was no evidence of proximate cause or inadequate psychiatric screening for Jonathan Lance Dowell, who committed suicide after being released from their care for self-inflicted wrist cuts. The dissenting Chief Justice Gray believes the judgment should be reversed and rendered, as there was no evidence of the appellants' conduct being a substantial cause of death. The main opinion affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.

Wrongful DeathSurvival SuitProximate CausePsychiatric ScreeningSuicideMedical NegligenceNo-evidence ComplaintSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
15
Case No. 10-10-00171-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2012

Mary Frances Haferkamp v. SSC Waco Greenview Operating Company, LP, Mariner Healthcare Management Company, SSC Pasadena Operating Company, LP, LLC, Savanseniorcare, LLC, Savaseniorcare Administrative Services, LLC

Mary Frances Haferkamp appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of SSC Waco Greenview Operating Company LP and other entities. Haferkamp sued for negligence due to an alleged workplace injury, claiming appellees were nonsubscribers to worker’s compensation insurance and failed to provide a safe workplace and adequate tools. Appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of proximate cause and no breach of duty. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Haferkamp's deposition testimony conclusively established that the appellees' alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of her injury, as the patient's sudden act was unpreventable and she would not have used a gait belt even if available.

Negligence ClaimWorkplace InjurySummary Judgment AppealProximate CauseTexas Labor CodeNonsubscriber EmployerEmployer Duty of CareAppellate ReviewDeposition TestimonyGait Belt
References
14
Case No. 10-02-00326-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2004

Daughters of Charity Health Services of Waco, a Texas Corporation D/B/A Providence Health Center v. Donald Linnstaedter and Kenneth Bolen

The dissenting opinion argues against the majority's decision regarding hospital liens and the Texas Labor Code. Appellant Providence Health Center sought to enforce hospital liens on settlement proceeds received by Appellees Linnstaedter and Bolen from a third-party tortfeasor. The dissent contends that the Texas Labor Code's medical fee guidelines limit what workers' compensation insurers pay, not what hospitals can charge, and therefore Providence's lien for the full 'reasonable and necessary charges' should have attached to the settlement. The dissent also distinguishes the present case from cited precedents where hospitals contractually agreed to accept reduced payments as full satisfaction. It emphasizes that denying Providence's lien would result in a windfall for the appellees and contravenes the purpose of the hospital lien statute to secure payment for medical services.

Hospital LienWorkers' CompensationMedical ExpensesTexas Property CodeSettlement ProceedsThird-Party TortfeasorReimbursementMedical Fee GuidelineStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. W-96-CA-139, et al.
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 1999

Andrade v. Chojnacki

This case addresses claims stemming from the 1993 Waco siege, brought by Branch Davidian survivors and family members against the United States, various federal officials (ATF, FBI), and former Texas Governor Ann Richards. Plaintiffs asserted violations under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), Bivens, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988, 1985(3), RICO, and Texas state law. The Court granted most of the defendants' motions, dismissing claims under §§ 1983, 1985(3), RICO, and Texas constitutional law. Many Bivens claims against individual defendants were dismissed due to qualified immunity or lack of specific allegations. Some FTCA claims were dismissed for procedural failures or under the discretionary function exception, and bystander liability was rejected. Remaining for trial are specific FTCA claims against the United States concerning excessive force during the initial raid, excessive force by the FBI during tear gas insertion and the fire, and FBI negligence related to the fire and its extinguishment. FBI Agent Lon Horiuchi remains an individual defendant for certain Bivens claims.

Waco siegeBranch DavidiansFederal Tort Claims ActBivens actionQualified ImmunityExcessive ForceFourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentDue ProcessRICO
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyes v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Rodolfo A. Reyes appealed an order from the District Court of Maverick County that dismissed his lawsuit against Texas Employers Insurance Association (TEIA). The dispute centered on the proper venue for a worker's compensation case and the procedural implications of two concurrently filed lawsuits. A prior appellate decision from the Waco Court of Civil Appeals had mandated the transfer of TEIA's case to Maverick County. This court ultimately found Reyes's appeal to be moot because the Waco court's decision, which became final, had already resolved the central venue issue. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and vacated all related orders, citing established precedent for handling moot cases on appeal.

MootnessPlea to JurisdictionPlea in AbatementVenue DisputeWorkers' CompensationIndustrial Accident BoardTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate ReviewCase DismissalJurisdiction
References
8
Case No. No. 5524
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1976

Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n v. Loesch

Arthur J. Loesch, employed by General Tire and Rubber Co. in Waco, Texas, sustained a back injury on May 8, 1963, while building truck tires, leading to a workman's compensation claim. A jury found Loesch suffered total and permanent incapacity beginning on the injury date. The Texas Employers Insurance Association appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for total permanent incapacity and procedural errors in the trial court's jury charge and handling of voir dire examination. The Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Waco, affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that the evidence supported the jury's findings and that any alleged procedural errors were either waived or harmless. The court emphasized a liberal construction of the workmen's compensation act in favor of the injured employee.

Workman's CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityBack InjuryRuptured DiscMedical TestimonyExpert WitnessVoir Dire ExaminationJury InstructionsHarmless ErrorAppellate Review
References
21
Case No. 03-22-00524-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2024

City of McAllen, City of San Antonio, City of Dallas, City of Austin, City of El Paso, City of Plano, City of Garland, City of Irving, City of Amarillo, City of Grand Prairie, City of Brownsville, City of McKinney, City of Waco, City of College Station, City of Sugar Land, City of Mission, City of Pharr, Town of Flower Mound, City of Rowlett, City of Bedford, City of San Marcos// the State of Texas v. the State of Texas// City of McAllen, City of San Antonio, City of Dallas, City of Austin, City of El Paso, City of Plano, City of Garland, City of Irving, City of Amarillo, City of Grand Prairie, City of Brownsville, City of McKinney, City of Waco, City of College Station, City of Sugar Land, City of Mission, City of Pharr, Town of Flower Mound, City of Rowlett, City of Bedford, City of San Marcos

This case involves an appeal regarding the constitutionality of Texas Senate Bills 1004 and 1152, which affect fees municipalities can charge utility providers for public rights-of-way. The McAllen Plaintiffs, a group of 58 Texas cities, and the City of Houston (collectively, the Cities) challenged these statutes, arguing they violate the Texas Constitution's gift clauses by granting public value without sufficient consideration. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the Cities, declaring SB 1152 unconstitutional, and granted in part the State's motion regarding SB 1004. The appellate court found a material fact question regarding the adequacy of consideration for SB 1004's $250 fee limit, reversing and remanding that portion. For SB 1152, which exempted certain providers from one fee if they paid another, the court affirmed its unconstitutionality, ruling that it constitutes an unconstitutional gratuity as it eliminates consideration for one type of access.

Texas Court of AppealsDeclaratory JudgmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawGift ClausePublic Rights-of-WayUtility FeesTelecommunicationsCable ServicesWireless Services
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Daughters of Charity Health Services of Waco v. Linnstaedter

This appeal addresses a novel legal question: whether statutory limits on healthcare charges for workers' compensation claimants prevent providers from filing hospital liens for additional sums. The Employees, injured workers, were treated by Providence Health Center, which subsequently filed hospital liens after receiving payment from their workers' compensation carrier. The Employees argued that the Labor Code capped the collectible amount, negating any underlying debt to support the liens. The court concurred with the Employees, ruling that Providence had no right to file hospital liens for charges exceeding the Labor Code's provisions. Consequently, the judgment in favor of the Employees was affirmed.

Hospital LienWorkers' CompensationLabor CodeProperty CodeHealthcare ChargesFirst ImpressionDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationUnderlying Debt
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 19 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