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. 12-02-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2004

Jayanti Patel v. City of Everman, Tom Killebrew, and Metro Code Analysis, L.L.P.

Jayanti Patel appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Everman and Tom Killebrew d/b/a Metro Code Analysis. Patel had sued the City and Killebrew for an unlawful taking of his properties without just compensation, procedural due process violations, trespass, and conversion, stemming from the demolition of his apartment buildings due to alleged code violations. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment regarding Patel's consent to the demolition of fifteen properties, his due process claim, and his trespass and conversion claims due to res judicata. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Patel's takings claim concerning four specific properties (403 Lee Street, 410 Race Street, 405 King Street, and 403 King Street) where the defense of consent was not applicable and a fact issue existed regarding nuisance.

Property DemolitionInverse CondemnationSummary JudgmentTexas ConstitutionDue Process ClaimTrespass ClaimConversion ClaimRes JudicataNuisance DefenseAppellate Review
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

London v. London

This case concerns a lawsuit filed by a former wife against her former husband, alleging unlawful interception and recording of her telephone conversations with their eight-year-old daughter. The defendant used an automatic answering machine attached to his home phone, where the daughter resided, to record these calls during 1973-1974, a period of their legal separation before their divorce. The plaintiff sought damages under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511 and 2520, which prohibit willful wire communication interception and provide a civil cause of action. The Court, citing Simpson v. Simpson, dismissed the complaint, ruling that Congress did not intend these statutes to apply to a family member's interception of calls within the family home, regardless of the recording method or the specific family relationship.

Telephone EavesdroppingWire Communication InterceptionFamily LawDomestic DisputesPrivacyFederal JurisdictionMotion to Dismiss18 U.S.C. 251118 U.S.C. 2520Marital Home
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

HCA Healthcare Corp. v. Texas Department of Insurance

This case involves HCA Healthcare Corporation and other hospitals (collectively, "the Hospitals") who filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Texas Department of Insurance, its Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC), and Commissioner Albert Betts, Jr. The Hospitals sought to reverse 1,406 decisions issued by DWC and challenged the facial constitutionality of former Texas Labor Code § 413.031(k) for allegedly failing to provide a right to a contested case hearing in medical disputes. Texas Mutual Insurance Company also intervened. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the Hospitals and Texas Mutual on the right to a hearing but denied the Hospitals' request to set aside the 1,406 DWC orders. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of the Hospitals' request to set aside the DWC decisions, citing a lack of jurisdiction due to untimely appeals. Furthermore, the court reversed the trial court's declaration that former § 413.031(k) was facially unconstitutional, rendering judgment that the statute is indeed facially constitutional.

Medical Dispute ResolutionWorkers' CompensationTexas Labor CodeFacial ConstitutionalityJudicial ReviewAdministrative Procedure ActSummary JudgmentAppellate CourtDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive Relief
References
16
Case No. 09-03-217 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2004

TMC Foods L.L.C. D/B/A Popeye's Fried Chicken v. Jewel Mason

Jewel Mason sued her former employer, Popeye's, alleging retaliatory termination for filing a workers' compensation claim under Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 451.001. A jury found Popeye's violated the code and awarded Mason damages for mental anguish and exemplary damages, finding malice. On appeal, Popeye's challenged these awards on sufficiency grounds. The Court of Appeals found the evidence legally insufficient to prove malice, thus overturning the exemplary damages. Additionally, the court found Mason's testimony on mental anguish to be conclusory and legally insufficient, overturning that award as well. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed as modified, deleting both the mental anguish and exemplary damages.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimMaliceExemplary DamagesMental AnguishSufficiency of EvidenceClear and Convincing EvidenceIntentional TortAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
17
Case No. ADJ273572
Regular
Nov 14, 2008

DIANE DRUEBERT vs. KELLY STAFF LEASING, INC.

This case concerns an award of attorney's fees and costs to the applicant's counsel for successfully opposing the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review at the appellate level. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for this specific purpose. The Appeals Board awarded $4,350.00 in attorney's fees and $142.61 in costs, totaling $4,492.61, after reviewing the attorney's itemized time and the complexity of the appellate work.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewSupplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Reasonable CostsCourt of AppealAppellate Attorney's FeesComplex IssuesLegislative IntentSocial Security Offset
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2006

Command Cinema Corp. v. VCA Labs, Inc.

Command Cinema (Plaintiff) sued VCA Labs (Defendant) for breach of express contract, conversion, and breach of implied contract regarding the loss of master tapes for two adult films, 'The Last X-Rated Movie' (LXRM) and 'The Firestorm Trilogy' (FT). VCA moved to dismiss and for summary judgment on several claims, and in limine to exclude certain damages. Command cross-moved for summary judgment on conversion. The court denied VCA's summary judgment motion on the FT breach of contract claim but granted Command's summary judgment on both FT and LXRM breach of contract claims. The court granted VCA's summary judgment motions on conversion and implied breach of contract, consequently denying Command's cross-motions on these claims. Regarding damages, the court granted VCA's motion in limine to exclude lost profits for the FT contract but denied it for the LXRM contract, allowing Command to present evidence for lost asset value for LXRM. Punitive damages were also precluded.

Breach of ContractConversionImplied ContractSummary JudgmentMotion in LimineLost ProfitsPunitive DamagesMaster TapesBailmentContract Interpretation
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Strayhorn

This case concerns an appeal by USAA for a tax refund of sales and use taxes paid from 1994 to 1999. USAA argued that repealed sections of the Texas Insurance Code, specifically former articles 4.10 and 4.11, which contained a 'no other tax' clause, exempted them from all state taxes not expressly provided in the insurance code. The Comptroller contended that this language only applied to occupation and franchise taxes. The district court ruled in favor of the Comptroller, and the appellate court affirmed this judgment, determining that the tax exemptions in the former insurance code articles were narrowly intended to replace general occupation and franchise taxes and did not extend to later-enacted taxes of general applicability like sales and use taxes, which did not exist at the time the exemption was originally granted in 1907.

Tax exemptionStatutory interpretationSales and use taxInsurance lawLegislative intentGross receipts taxOccupation taxFranchise taxTexas taxationAppellate review
References
15
Case No. 03-02-00747-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2003

UNITED SERVICES AUTO. ASS'N v. Strayhorn

This appeal addresses a tax refund claim by United Services Automobile Association (USAA) against the Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas, asserting exemption from sales and use taxes based on repealed sections of the Texas Insurance Code (former articles 4.10 and 4.11). USAA contended that these provisions, which specified 'no other tax' than a gross receipts tax, exempted them from all other state taxes not expressly provided for in the insurance code. The district court denied USAA's motion for summary judgment and granted the Comptroller's, ruling that the insurance code provisions did not exempt USAA from sales and use taxes. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court concluded that the tax exemption language in the former articles 4.10 and 4.11 was narrowly intended to replace general occupation and franchise taxes, and did not apply to later-enacted taxes of general applicability like sales and use taxes, which did not exist when the original exemptions were created.

Insurance TaxSales and Use TaxTax ExemptionStatutory ConstructionLegislative IntentTexas Insurance CodeGross Receipts TaxOccupation TaxFranchise TaxAppellate Review
References
38
Case No. 03-07-00007-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2009

HCA Healthcare Corporation \\ Albert Betts, Jr. and Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation v. Texas Department of Insurance Albert Betts, Jr. and Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation\\ HCA Healthcare Corporation

This case concerns an appeal from the District Court of Travis County regarding the constitutionality of a provision within the Texas Labor Code related to medical dispute resolution in workers' compensation. HCA Healthcare Corporation and other hospitals ("the Hospitals") initially sued the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) and its Division of Workers' Compensation (DWC), seeking to reverse 1,406 DWC decisions and challenging the constitutionality of former Texas Labor Code § 413.031(k). The trial court granted summary judgment for the Hospitals, finding the subsection unconstitutional for not providing a contested case hearing, but denied reversing the DWC decisions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial to set aside the 1,406 DWC decisions, ruling that the district court lacked jurisdiction due to the Hospitals' failure to file timely petitions for judicial review. Additionally, the appellate court reversed the declaration of unconstitutionality, holding that former Texas Labor Code § 413.031(k) is facially constitutional, as the Hospitals did not demonstrate its unconstitutionality across all applications, including medical necessity disputes.

Workers' CompensationMedical DisputesConstitutional LawAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSummary JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionTexas Labor CodeDeclaratory JudgmentFacial Challenge
References
17
Case No. ADJ10307427
Regular
Mar 21, 2017

CHRISTOPHER DEVEREUX vs. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Permissibly Self-Insured; administered by THE HARTFORD

This case concerns an award of additional attorney's fees for applicant's counsel, pursuant to Labor Code § 5801. The Third District Court of Appeal remanded the matter for this purpose after denying the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review. The parties stipulated to reasonable attorney's fees of $2,500.00. The Board has issued an award of these appellate attorney's fees in favor of the applicant's counsel, payable in addition to any compensation awarded to the applicant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5801attorney's feesPetition for Writ of Reviewappellate attorney's feesstipulationawardState Compensation Insurance FundThe Hartfordremanded
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 7,691 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