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. 01-17-00146-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2019

Michael Fallon, M.D. v. the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson as Officer for the Public Information for the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Michael Fallon, M.D. sued the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA) after they denied his request for certain information, claiming it was held by an affiliated private entity, the MD Anderson Physicians Network. The trial court dismissed Fallon's suit. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Fallon's mandamus claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the Cancer Center had a right of access to the Physicians Network's records, thereby making the information "public information" under the PIA. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Fallon's declaratory judgment claim, stating that the Declaratory Judgments Act does not waive sovereign immunity for such claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Public Information ActSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentMandamusGovernmental BodyNon-profit OrganizationPhysicians NetworkMedical Peer ReviewSummary JudgmentPlea to Jurisdiction
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Spectrum Information Technologies, Inc.

This bankruptcy case concerns two motions: the Debtors' request to reject John Marchione's employment agreement and Marchione's application for his severance pay claim to be treated as an administrative expense. John Marchione, former president of a debtor subsidiary, was involuntarily terminated post-petition. The Court, presided over by Chief Judge Conrad B. Duberstein in the Eastern District of New York, ruled that the employment agreement was not an executory contract at the time of the rejection motion. Citing established Second Circuit precedent, the Court held that Marchione's severance pay, despite being calculated based on length of service, accrues entirely upon post-petition termination and thus qualifies as an administrative expense entitled to priority under the Bankruptcy Code. Consequently, the Debtors' motion to reject was denied, and Marchione's claim for $75,000 was granted administrative expense priority.

BankruptcyExecutory ContractsEmployment AgreementSeverance PayAdministrative ExpensePriority ClaimRejection of ContractChapter 11Debtor-in-PossessionSecond Circuit Precedent
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Health Care Information Council v. Seton Health Plan, Inc.

Seton Health Plan, Inc., a licensed health maintenance organization (HMO), failed to file its annual Health Plan Employer Data Information Set (HEDIS) reports for 1999 and 2000 with the Texas Health Care Information Council, leading to a dispute over civil penalties. The State, through the Attorney General, initially demanded $153,000, interpreting 'each act of violation' as each day of non-compliance, while Seton contended the maximum penalty was $10,000 per unfiled report. Seton filed a declaratory judgment action to construe the statute, and the district court sided with Seton, assessing a minimum penalty of $1,000 for each report. The State appealed, raising issues of mootness, sovereign immunity, the penalty amount, denial of injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the district court's interpretation of the penalty, the assessed penalties, and the denial of injunctive relief, but remanded the issue of the State's attorney's fees.

Declaratory JudgmentStatutory ConstructionCivil PenaltiesSovereign ImmunityInjunctive ReliefAttorney's FeesHEDIS ReportHealth Maintenance OrganizationTexas Health and Safety CodeAdministrative Procedure Act
References
43
Case No. 03-02-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2002

Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General v. Seton Health Plan, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by the Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General, against Seton Health Plan, Inc. The core dispute centered on the interpretation of civil penalties for Seton's failure to file annual Health Plan Employer Data Information Set (HEDIS) reports as required by the Texas Health and Safety Code. Seton sought a declaratory judgment asserting that the maximum penalty for such a violation was $10,000 per report, while the State initially pursued a penalty based on each day of violation. The district court sided with Seton on the maximum penalty, assessed minimum penalties of $1,000 for each of the two unfiled reports, denied the State's request for injunctive relief, and ordered the State to pay Seton's attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's declaratory judgment, the denial of injunctive relief, and the penalty assessment. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the issue of the State's attorney's fees, ruling that the State was statutorily entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under Government Code section 402.006(c) due to its recovery of a civil penalty.

Texas LawHealth Care RegulationHEDIS Report ViolationCivil PenaltiesDeclaratory Judgment ActionSovereign Immunity WaiverInjunctive Relief DeniedAttorney's Fees AwardStatutory ConstructionAdministrative Law
References
44
Case No. ADJ4642991 (VNO 0556266)
Regular
Sep 09, 2011

## RICHARD ANTONETTE, vs. VOLT INFORMATION SCIENCES; MAJESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to review a proposed $\$4,600$ compromise and release agreement. The agreement attempts to settle applicant Richard Antonette's claim, waiving future medical treatment and noting a substantial temporary disability overpayment, but the WCAB lacks sufficient information for approval. Citing *Tensfeldt v. WCAB*, the WCAB emphasizes that a fraud conviction does not automatically bar all future benefits, requiring an individualized assessment of the facts. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level to determine the adequacy of the settlement and any necessary further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseWorkers' Compensation FraudInsurance Code Section 1871.4(a)(1)Labor Code Section 3207Tensfeldt v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Case-by-case determinationIndustrial injuryMedical evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Howington

David Edward Howington entered into an informal immunity agreement with the district attorney general, promising truthful testimony in exchange for a recommendation for a reduced charge of second-degree murder. The prosecutor subsequently refused to honor the agreement, alleging Howington lied about the amount of money received, leading to his conviction for first-degree felony murder. On appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court addressed the enforceability of such informal agreements. The Court held that these agreements are contractual in nature and judicially enforceable, explicitly overruling *Bruno v. State*. It found that Howington had substantially fulfilled his obligations, and any alleged untruthfulness was immaterial. Consequently, the Court reversed the first-degree murder conviction, entered judgment for second-degree murder, and remanded the case for resentencing.

Immunity AgreementProsecutorial DiscretionContract LawBreach of ContractCriminal ProcedureFirst-Degree MurderSecond-Degree MurderSelf-IncriminationPreliminary HearingJudicial Enforcement
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wallach v. Smith (In re NanoDynamics, Inc.)

This case concerns a Chapter 7 Trustee's attempt to collect a $700,000 unpaid balance on a stock subscription agreement from Mr. and Mrs. Smith on behalf of the Debtor corporation, Nanodynamics. The defendants argued that the agreement was unenforceable due to the Debtor's failure to disclose critical financial information, including a liquidity crisis and potential Chapter 11 filing, before they signed. The Trustee asserted that the defendants, being sophisticated investors, waived their rights by making a subsequent payment after allegedly gaining knowledge of the undisclosed information. However, the court determined that the Debtor, had it sued before bankruptcy, could not have enforced the agreement, as it had internally acknowledged the necessity of these disclosures under securities regulations. The court therefore ruled that the stock subscription agreement was unenforceable under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, effectively foreclosing the Trustee's claim on this particular legal theory.

BankruptcyChapter 7Stock Subscription AgreementSecurities LawRule 10b-5Section 10(b)Disclosure ObligationsMaterial InformationAdversary ProceedingSummary Judgment
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morser v. AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Plaintiff Roy Morser filed an age discrimination complaint against defendant AT & T Information Systems (ATT-IS) after being laid off during a company-wide reduction-in-force. The court initially granted summary judgment in favor of ATT-IS, prompting Morser to file a motion for reargument. Morser based his motion on recent Second Circuit employment discrimination decisions, Montana and Ramseur, arguing that the court had overlooked or misapplied summary judgment standards, particularly regarding intent and drawing inferences in favor of the non-moving party. The court granted the motion for reargument, but upon reconsideration, reaffirmed its original decision to grant summary judgment to ATT-IS. The court found that its initial ruling had properly applied summary judgment standards and distinguished the facts of Morser's case from the precedents cited, noting the context of a massive layoff and lack of specific evidence of discriminatory intent.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentReduction-in-Force (RIF)Rule 56 Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 3(j) Civil Rules S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y.Rule 59(e) Fed.R.Civ.P.Reargument MotionEmployment LawDisparate TreatmentSecond Circuit Precedent
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Southern Electronics Co., Inc.

The debtor, Southern Electronics Company, Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and proposed to reject its collective bargaining agreement with the Communications Workers of America (CWA). The debtor argued that the seniority provisions of the agreement protected unproductive employees, contributing to financial losses. The court reviewed legal standards for rejecting such agreements, opting for a 'balancing of the equities' test. Despite concerns about the debtor's intransigence and lack of documentation for employee unproductivity, the court found the agreement burdensome due to potential arbitration costs and critical need for reorganization funds contingent on rejection. Ultimately, the court permitted the rejection of the agreement and confirmed the debtor's plan of reorganization, prioritizing the continuation of the business and the interests of current employees and unsecured creditors over the perpetuation of the collective bargaining agreement.

BankruptcyChapter 11Collective Bargaining AgreementContract RejectionLabor LawDebtor in PossessionSeniority ClauseUnfair Labor PracticeReorganization PlanEquities Balancing Test
References
14
Case No. 15-25-00138-cv
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2025

Shamar D. Bradley v. Texas Office of the Attorney General and Texas Department of Information Resources

Appellant Shamar D. Bradley appealed the trial court's denial of his Motion for Injunctive Relief. Appellee Texas Department of Information Resources (DIR) argues that Appellant is not entitled to a temporary injunction. DIR contends that Appellant lacks a probable right to the relief sought, either due to a lack of standing for his claims or because his claims are barred by sovereign immunity. Furthermore, DIR asserts that Appellant is not in danger of suffering a probable, imminent, or irreparable injury without a temporary injunction. Therefore, DIR requests the Court to affirm the trial court's order denying injunctive relief and dismiss Appellant's appeal.

Whistleblower ActSovereign ImmunityInjunctive ReliefAppellate ProcedureEmployment LawState AgencyDue Process ViolationRetaliationCopyright InfringementJudicial Review
References
94
Showing 1-10 of 4,658 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