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

Mid-Century Insurance Co. of Texas v. Kidd

This case addresses whether an insured can recover the same loss under both uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) and personal injury protection (PIP) coverages of a standard automobile insurance policy in Texas. The Supreme Court consolidated two cases, Kidd and Gerlich, where lower courts refused to enforce a policy provision barring duplication of UM and PIP benefits. The Court held that a non-duplication-of-PIP-benefits provision is valid and enforceable, reversing the judgments of the courts of appeals. The decision clarifies that this offset provision prevents double recoveries, rather than reducing UM/UIM policy limits or causing insureds to recover less than actual damages, and is consistent with Texas statutes and common law.

Automobile InsuranceUninsured/Underinsured MotoristPersonal Injury ProtectionInsurance Policy InterpretationDouble RecoveryNon-Duplication ClauseCollateral Source RuleStatutory InterpretationInsurance LawPolicy Offsets
References
26
Case No. 13-01-00119-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

McAllen Police Officer's Union and the City of McAllen, Texas v. Ricardo Tamez, Individually and as President of the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, and McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association

The City of McAllen and the McAllen Police Officers Union (appellants) appealed a district court order compelling an election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent for the city's police officers. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals in Texas reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that selection by petition is a proper method for designating a bargaining agent and found no evidence of coercion in the petition's circulation. It further concluded that the appellees, Ricardo Tamez and the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, failed to provide 'substantial support' to warrant an election, thus denying their requests for a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus.

Collective BargainingPolice UnionLabor LawElectionPetitionSupervisor InfluenceMajority RepresentationTexas Local Government CodeNational Labor Relations ActAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington Heights—West Harlem—Inwood Mental Health Council, Inc. v. District 1199, National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees, RWDSU

This District Court opinion addresses motions by the Washington Heights Mental Health Council to amend its complaint and by District 1199 to enforce an arbitration award. Previously, the court vacated an award reinstating Edward Lane with back pay, but the Second Circuit reversed and remanded. The court now finds an oral collective bargaining agreement existed, generally requiring enforcement of the arbitration award. However, new serious allegations against Lane, if proven, could justify discharge. A strong public policy against reinstating a mental health worker accused of sexually molesting patients warrants staying his reinstatement pending arbitration of these new claims. Despite this, the court orders the Council to comply with the back pay portion of the arbitration award, finding no public policy violation in that aspect.

Arbitration Award EnforcementCollective Bargaining AgreementBack PayReinstatement StayedSexual Misconduct AllegationsPublic Policy ExceptionLabor DisputeAmended ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRemand Order
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Elizabeth A. Horton Memorial Hospital

A proceeding was initiated by the State Division of Human Rights to enforce an order against Elizabeth A. Horton Memorial Hospital. The hospital had discriminated against a female employee by denying disability benefits for pregnancy-related disability, despite being a self-insured employer providing benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law. The State Division's order, affirmed by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, directed the hospital to pay benefits, furnish proof, and establish a nondiscrimination policy. The hospital failed to comply, leading to this enforcement action almost two years after the Appeal Board's order. The court granted the petition for enforcement, denied the hospital's cross-motion, found the enforcement proceeding timely and not barred by laches, and affirmed that the original discrimination finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Sex DiscriminationPregnancy Disability BenefitsEnforcement ProceedingHuman Rights LawWorkers' Compensation LawTimelinessLachesSubstantial EvidenceEmployer DiscriminationDisability Benefits Denial
References
4
Case No. 15-24-00116-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2025

Arnulfo Cortez, Jr.; Homero R. Balderas, Brian D. Nipper, Mark F. Van Rosendael and Bryan K. Hugghins v. Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; Gregory Stevens in His Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; And John Beauchamp, in His Official Capacity as Counsel for Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; And T.J. Vineyard, in His Official Capacity as Major for the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement

Appellants have neither identified a waiver of the Appellees’ sovereign immunity nor pled a cause of action to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the Court. Sovereign immunity protects state agencies and officers unless there is a clear waiver. Appellants' claims for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) are barred as administrative remedies were not exhausted, and they are not aggrieved by a final contested case decision. Similarly, claims under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) fail to waive sovereign immunity and seek impermissible relief challenging an unripe agency order. Appellants' ultra vires claims and mandamus requests are also barred because Appellees acted within their statutory authority in taking disciplinary actions and issuing a warning, and no ministerial duty to grant SOAH hearings for all Appellants exists. Therefore, the trial court properly granted Appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA)Ultra Vires ClaimsMandamus ReliefPeace Officer LicensureLaw Enforcement DisciplineTexas Courts of AppealsJudicial Review
References
38
Case No. 03-17-00478-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2017

in Re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation: Texas Clean Air Act Enforcement Cases

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, conditionally granted the State's petition for writ of mandamus. The State sought to abate eighteen later-filed cases, initiated by various counties against Volkswagen, concerning enforcement of the Texas Clean Air Act. The court determined that the common-law doctrine of dominant jurisdiction required the abatement of these later-filed suits because the State's enforcement action against Volkswagen was filed first. The court found that venue was proper in both sets of cases and that they were inherently interrelated, involving the same parties, controversy, and environmental law enforcement. The MDL statute was not intended to modify or create an exception to the dominant jurisdiction rule under these unique circumstances, where all actions sought to impose penalties for the same TCAA violations. Therefore, the MDL pretrial court abused its discretion by not granting the State's plea in abatement.

Mandamus ReliefDominant JurisdictionAbatement of SuitsTexas Clean Air ActMultidistrict Litigation (MDL)Environmental LawInterrelated CasesFirst-Filed RuleAppellate Court DecisionVolkswagen Litigation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sephora USA, LLC

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and several former Sephora employees sued Sephora USA, LLC, alleging national origin discrimination under Title VII due to an "English-only" rule. This rule, outlined in an HR memorandum, required employees to speak English on the sales floor when clients were present, citing business necessity for customer service and approachability. Plaintiffs argued disparate impact and alleged inconsistent application of the policy, claiming managers enforced stricter "English-only" rules. The court granted Sephora's motion for partial summary judgment, determining that the written English language policy was job-related and consistent with business necessity. The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a less discriminatory alternative to the policy.

English-only ruleNational Origin DiscriminationDisparate ImpactTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Summary JudgmentBusiness NecessityCustomer ServiceEmployment LawWorkplace Policy
References
29
Case No. 44 S.W.3d 554
Regular Panel Decision

Lawrence v. CDB Services, Inc.

Justice Baker's dissenting opinion argues that the majority's decision to uphold waivers of workers' compensation claims on public policy grounds directly contradicts the intent and established public policies of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The dissent emphasizes that the Act created a comprehensive system to encourage employer participation in workers' compensation insurance and ensure adequate redress for all injured employees. Baker asserts that the Court improperly defers to the Legislature on a matter where legislative intent, prioritizing employee protection and encouraging subscription, is clear. The dissent concludes that such waivers are void as they undermine the statutory scheme, and their acceptance by employees should not render them enforceable.

Workers' Compensation ActPublic PolicyWaiversEmployer LiabilityEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationContract LawDissenting OpinionTexas LawCommon Law Defenses
References
26
Case No. docket # 1
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Alliance Residential Co.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sought to enforce an administrative subpoena against Aliance Residential Company as part of an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) investigation. The investigation stemmed from a charge filed by former employee Monica Laurel, who alleged wrongful termination after exhausting FMLA leave due to a spinal impairment, under Aliance's company-wide medical leave policy. Aliance objected to the subpoena, arguing irrelevance, undue burden, harassment, and privacy concerns regarding other employees' medical and personal information. The Court granted the EEOC's application, finding the requested company-wide information relevant to illuminate Aliance's general policies bearing on the complainant's situation. It also determined that while compliance might be inconvenient, it did not constitute an undue burden or harassment, and existing statutory safeguards adequately addressed privacy concerns, except for compelling Alliance to interview former employees over whom it had no control.

Employment DiscriminationADAFMLAAdministrative Subpoena EnforcementDisability DiscriminationEEOC InvestigationRelevancy of EvidenceUndue BurdenConfidentiality ConcernsCompany-wide Policy
References
26
Case No. 2020-07-0026
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2020

Dennison, Robert v. Packaging Corporation of America

Employee Robert G. Dennison sustained severe crush injuries while working under mechanical equipment that engaged unexpectedly. The employer, Packaging Corporation of America, initially provided benefits but later denied the claim, asserting willful violation of a safety rule based on the employee's failure to comply with its lockout/tagout policy. The employee acknowledged the rule and its violation but argued the employer did not genuinely enforce the policy and that he had a valid excuse. The trial court found the employer established bona fide enforcement and the employee lacked a valid excuse, denying benefits. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the employer consistently enforced its policy and the employee did not have a valid excuse for his actions, and remanded the case.

Workers' Compensation AppealsWorkplace InjurySafety Rule ViolationLockout/Tagout PolicyWillful MisconductAffirmative DefenseBona Fide EnforcementMedical Benefits DenialTemporary Disability BenefitsEmployee Termination
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,484 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