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. No. 08-22-00029-CV (TC# 2021DCV1132)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2023

Ricardo A. Samaniego, in His Official Capacity as County Judge, Carlos Leon, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner, David Stout, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner, Illiana Holguin, in Her Official Capacity as County Commissioner, Carl L. Robinson, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner v. Associated General Contractors of Texas, Highway, Heavy, Utilities & Industrial Branch and a Brothers Milling, LLC

The El Paso County Commissioners Court, including County Judge Ricardo A. Samaniego and Commissioners, appealed the denial of their plea to the jurisdiction. They were sued by Associated General Contractors of Texas and A Brothers Milling, LLC, who alleged the Commissioners Court acted ultra vires in setting prevailing wage rates for heavy-highway construction projects in El Paso County. The Appellants argued governmental immunity shielded them and that their wage determinations were final. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, concluding that the Appellees had sufficiently pleaded an ultra vires claim, which falls within the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction. The court clarified that ultra vires acts by public officials are not considered acts of the state and therefore are not subject to the finality clause.

Governmental ImmunityUltra Vires ActPrevailing Wage RatePublic WorksSubject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Government CodeStatutory InterpretationEl Paso County
References
16
Case No. 03-13-00560-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2015

Risk Management Strategies, Inc. v. Texas Workforce Commission Commissioner Andres Alcantar Commissioner Ronald G. Congleton And Commissioner Hope Andrade

Risk Management Strategies, Inc. (RMS) appealed a trial court's dismissal of its suit against the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) and its commissioners regarding a determination that caregivers were employees of bank trusts, not RMS, for unemployment tax purposes. RMS sought judicial review of the TWC's decision and alleged ultra vires acts by the commissioners for misinterpreting the Texas Labor Code. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the judicial review claim, ruling that the statutory waiver of immunity applied only to unemployment benefits disputes, not tax liability. However, the court reversed and remanded the ultra vires claims, finding that while the commissioners were not solely bound by a 'control test,' RMS should have an opportunity to amend pleadings to demonstrate a specific statutory violation or lack of legal authority. The case was affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, allowing RMS to re-plead the ultra vires claims.

Unemployment Tax LiabilitySovereign ImmunityJudicial ReviewUltra Vires ClaimTexas Labor CodeEmployer-Employee RelationshipCaregiversBank TrustsStatutory ConstructionAppellate Procedure
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rapid Settlements Ltd. v. SSC Settlements, LLC

This case involves an appeal and mandamus proceeding filed by Rapid Settlements, Ltd. and Rapid Management Corporation (Rapid) against SSC Settlements, L.L.C. and Stone Street Capital, Inc. (SSC). Rapid challenged a final summary judgment related to the transfer of structured settlement payments from William Prante. Rapid sought to stay litigation pending arbitration, arguing the dispute with SSC fell under an arbitration clause in their agreement with Prante, which also included a right of first refusal and a security interest. The appellate court denied the mandamus petition, vacated the trial court's denial of Rapid's motion to stay, and reversed parts of the summary judgment concerning Rapid's security interest and right of first refusal. The court affirmed the trial court's award of attorney's fees to SSC and its injunction preventing Rapid from compelling SSC to arbitrate.

Arbitration AgreementMandamus ProceedingSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentStructured SettlementRight of First RefusalSecurity InterestEquitable EstoppelDirect Benefits EstoppelContract Law
References
42
Case No. 03-21-00294-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

Texas Telephone Association and Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative, Inc., and Their Participating Members Windstream Services, LLC Texas Windstream, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Windstream Communications Kerrville, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Valor Telecommunications of Texas, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications Southwest) Windstream Sugar Land LLC v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Peter Lake, Chairman Will McAdams, Commissioner Lori Cobos, Commissioner And Jimmy Glotfelty, Commissioner, Each in His or Her Official Capacity at the Public Utility Commission of Texas

This case involves a dispute over the Texas Universal Service Fund (TUSF), established to ensure affordable telecommunications services statewide. Rural telecommunication service providers (Rural Providers) sued the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) and its Commissioners when the PUC stopped paying full TUSF support amounts. The Rural Providers alleged ultra vires acts by the Commissioners for underfunding TUSF and creating a payment hierarchy, and violations of the APA for implementing these changes without proper rulemaking. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal, finding the Commissioners acted ultra vires and violated APA rulemaking procedures. The decision affirmed in part, reversed and rendered in part, and remanded in part for damages on a regulatory takings claim.

Texas Universal Service FundTelecommunications RegulationPublic Utility CommissionRural TelecommunicationsRegulatory TakingsUltra Vires ActAdministrative Procedure ActRulemaking ViolationDeclaratory JudgmentMandamus Relief
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Symetra Life Insurance v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd.

This case involves the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) seeking a permanent injunction against Rapid Settlements, Ltd., a factoring company. NASP alleged that Rapid Settlements improperly uses arbitration and enforces rights of first refusal and security interests in structured settlement payment rights without state-court approval, thereby circumventing state Structured Settlement Protection Acts (SSPAs). The court found that Rapid Settlements' practices illegally circumvent the SSPAs, cloud title to annuitants' payment rights, raise transaction costs for NASP members, and place them at a competitive disadvantage. The court rejected Rapid Settlements' defenses, including preemption by the Federal Arbitration Act and an 'unclean hands' argument against NASP. The court granted NASP's application, permanently enjoining Rapid Settlements from using arbitration or enforcing unapproved rights of first refusal and security interests to effectuate transfers of structured settlement payment rights.

Structured SettlementsFactoring CompaniesAnnuity PaymentsArbitrationInjunctionState LawFederal LawStructured Settlement Protection ActsRights of First RefusalSecurity Interests
References
33
Case No. 14-08-00193-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2010

Gregory R. Mattox and Barbara Wilkerson v. County Commissioners' Court-Grimes County, Betty Shiflett-Grimes County Judge, John Bertling-County Commissioner Pct 1., and Pam Finke-County Commissioner Pct 4

The case involves Gregory R. Mattox and Barbara Wilkerson (appellants) appealing a trial court's denial of their petition for a writ of mandamus. They sought to compel the Grimes County Commissioners Court and specific county officials (appellees) to cancel a roadway dedication on a portion of Hill Forest Lane that encroached on their property. The core dispute centers on whether the cancellation of the roadway dedication was a mandatory ministerial act under Texas Local Government Code section 232.008(e) or a discretionary act under section 232.008(h), which applies if the cancellation would prevent the interconnection of infrastructure to pending or existing development. The appellate court found that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the applicability of section 232.008(h), specifically concerning the existence of a "proposed interconnection" and "pending or existing development" on an adjacent property. Consequently, neither party was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of appellees and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Roadway DedicationWrit of MandamusLocal Government CodeSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationProperty RightsSubdivision CancellationMinisterial ActDiscretionary ActAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davison v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning a settlement order in a workers' compensation matter. The court initially erred by concluding that New Hampshire Insurance Company (NHIC), the compensation carrier, had sufficient notice of an initial settlement conference in 1984 and had waived its right to contest the reasonableness of the settlement. It was undisputed that NHIC was not served with papers prior to the initial conference, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law section 29 (5). The court also addressed the timeliness of the plaintiff's application for a nunc pro tunc compromise order, made 19 months after the initial settlement, ruling it timely as the delay was not due to plaintiff's neglect or fault and NHIC was not prejudiced. However, due to doubts about whether NHIC was fully heard and if adequate consideration was given to its concerns regarding the settlement's fairness (specifically regarding medical expenses, loss of consortium offset, and allocations to children not parties), the order was reversed. The matter was remitted for the development of a record and specific findings on the reasonableness of the settlement.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementNotice RequirementsNunc Pro Tunc OrderCompromise OrderCarrier LiabilityReasonableness of SettlementLoss of ConsortiumMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. NO. 03-13-00332-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2015

Gordon G. McWatt, D.O. v. David Mattax, Texas Commissioner of Insurance Ryan Brannan, Commissioner of Workers' Compensation And Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation

Gordon G. McWatt, D.O., appealed an administrative penalty of $15,000 and an order to attend an educational course for violating reporting and record-keeping requirements as a 'designated doctor' with the Division of Workers’ Compensation. The audit focused on the timely submission and electronic transmission of DWC Form-69s. McWatt argued that the ALJ and Commissioner lacked authority, retroactively applied rules, misinterpreted Rule 130.1 by holding him responsible for his employer Concentra's failures, and arbitrarily assessed penalties. The court found that the Division had proper authority for the audit and that Rule 130.1 held McWatt ultimately responsible for compliance, irrespective of his employer's role in filing. Consequently, the trial court's judgment affirming the ALJ's monetary penalty and the Commissioner's non-monetary sanction was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewReporting RequirementsRecord KeepingAdministrative PenaltiesMedical EvaluationMaximum Medical ImprovementImpairment RatingDesignated Doctor
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Settlement Capital Corp.

Settlement Capital Corporation (SCC) sought court approval, under New York's Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA), to acquire $125,000 of a $225,000 annuity payment due to Richard C. Ballos on October 1, 2010. Ballos, a totally disabled father of two, agreed to transfer these rights for a net advance of $36,500, reflecting a 15.591% annual discount rate. The court, presided over by Justice Patricia E. Satterfield, denied the petition after a hearing on April 23, 2003. The decision hinged on a two-pronged test: whether the transfer was in Ballos's 'best interest' and if the transaction terms were 'fair and reasonable.' The court found that Ballos did not demonstrate 'true hardship' given his other income sources and previous transfer of structured settlement payments, concluding it was not in his or his dependents' best interest. Furthermore, the court deemed the 15.591% discount rate, resulting in Ballos receiving only 29% of the transferred amount, unconscionable and not 'fair and reasonable.'

Structured SettlementStructured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Annuity TransferDiscount RateBest Interest StandardFair and Reasonable StandardPayee ProtectionFinancial HardshipCourt ApprovalGeneral Obligations Law
References
12
Case No. 11-20-00206-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 2021

the Ector County Alliance of Businesses v. Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas John W. Hellerstedt, in His Official Capacity as the Commissioner of Public Health of the State of Texas and/or as Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services And the State of Texas.

The Ector County Alliance of Businesses challenged Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Public Health Commissioner John Hellerstedt regarding executive orders and declarations imposing COVID-19 restrictions, specifically on bars. The Alliance, comprising Ector County bar operators, argued that sections of the Texas Disaster Act were unconstitutional and that the officials acted ultra vires. The trial court initially granted pleas to the jurisdiction. On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals, finding several issues moot due to intervening events like superseded orders and legislative amendments, dismissed all claims against the Commissioner and the Alliance's second through fifth causes of action against the Governor and the State for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the Alliance's first cause of action against the Governor and the State, concluding the Alliance lacked standing for prospective relief.

COVID-19Texas Disaster ActPublic Health DisasterExecutive OrdersConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersMootnessStandingSovereign ImmunityInjunctive Relief
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 4,672 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