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

In re Copeland

Michael Copeland sought a writ of mandamus to compel the district judge to vacate an order forcing arbitration with his employer, Stanley Transportation, Inc., following a work-related injury. Copeland contested the validity and public policy compliance of the arbitration agreement, specifically challenging the trial court's finding that Stanley's employee benefit plan offered benefits comparable to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Citing Lawrence v. CDB Servs., Inc., the court clarified that comparing benefit plan equivalence is not a relevant issue for compelling arbitration. Consequently, as the sole stated basis for the mandamus petition was deemed irrelevant, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus was denied.

Arbitration AgreementMandamusEmployment LawContract ValidityPublic PolicyFederal Arbitration ActTexas LawPreemptionEmployee Benefit PlanAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of San Antonio v. Spears

This is an original mandamus proceeding addressing whether an investigative report in a worker's compensation case, prepared after a claim but before appeal to district court, is privileged. George Flores, plaintiff in a worker's compensation case against the self-insured City of San Antonio (relator), sought discovery of such a report. Relator objected, asserting privilege. Judge Carolyn Spears, the respondent, ordered the production of a "Pre-Hearing Conference Preliminary Report." The relator sought a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Spears to vacate her order. The court held that "litigation" encompasses proceedings before the Industrial Accident Board, and therefore the pre-hearing report is privileged. Consequently, the writ of mandamus was conditionally granted.

MandamusInvestigative PrivilegeWorker's CompensationDiscoveryTexas LawIndustrial Accident BoardParty Communications PrivilegeAttorney-Client PrivilegeTrial De NovoAnticipation of Litigation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Borden, Inc. v. Valdez

Relators, Borden, Inc., and James Guffey, seek a writ of mandamus against Judge Rogelio Valdez. They challenged his order compelling Keith King, Borden's corporate labor counsel, to appear for a deposition in Hidalgo County, Texas, related to a wrongful termination suit by Jose Homer De La Rosa. Relators argued attorney-client privilege and that King, based in Franklin County, Ohio, should be deposed there. The court denied the mandamus regarding the attorney-client privilege, noting objections should be raised during the deposition. However, the court conditionally granted the mandamus concerning the deposition location, ruling that King's deposition must be taken in Franklin County, Ohio, consistent with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeAttorney-Client PrivilegeDeposition LocationWrit of MandamusAbuse of DiscretionTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureCorporate CounselWrongful TerminationWorkers' Compensation
References
14
Case No. No. 07-96-0102-CV
Regular Panel Decision

in Re Crawford & Company, Crawford & Company Healthcare Management, Inc., Patsy Hogan, and Old Republic Insurance Company, Relators

Crawford & Company et al. petitioned for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the trial court to grant their plea to the jurisdiction and motions for summary judgment, thereby dismissing all claims by Edward Glenn Johnson and Natalie Johnson for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to exclusive workers' compensation jurisdiction. The court denied the petition, finding that Crawford failed to meet the burden for mandamus relief. Reasons included a five-month delay in filing the petition, which was initiated shortly before the trial date, suggesting an attempt to further hinder adjudication. Additionally, mandamus is generally unavailable for reviewing summary judgment denials, especially concerning issues unrelated to administrative remedies. The court also clarified that previous rulings like Texas Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ruttiger did not preclude all common law claims against workers' compensation insurers, particularly malicious prosecution, which Crawford itself admitted fell outside the workers' compensation scheme.

MandamusPlea to the JurisdictionSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionWorkers' CompensationAdministrative RemediesExhaustion of RemediesAbuse of DiscretionInadequate Legal RemedyLaches
References
12
Case No. Cause No. 12-92-00401-CV; Cause No. 12-92-00400-CV; Cause No. 12-92-00386-CV
Regular Panel Decision

White v. Blake

The Relator, James Ronnie White, filed three original mandamus proceedings against Judge Blake concerning child custody and parental rights over his daughter, K_B_W_. The case originated from a 1983 Alabama divorce, with subsequent modifications and allegations of child abuse that Alabama courts found groundless. After the child's mother moved K_B_W_ to Texas, White challenged a Texas protective order, the denial of his habeas corpus application for possession of the child, and the refusal to dismiss a petition to terminate his parental rights. The appellate court denied mandamus relief for the protective order and the denial of habeas corpus (due to lack of record on emergency grounds) but conditionally granted relief regarding attorney's fees awarded in the habeas matter. Crucially, the court conditionally granted mandamus relief to dismiss the termination petition, holding that the Texas court abused its discretion by not adhering to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) and Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) requirements for deferring jurisdiction to Alabama, which continued to exercise jurisdiction.

MandamusChild CustodyParental Rights TerminationJurisdiction DisputeUCCJAPKPAInterstate CustodyHabeas CorpusProtective OrderAttorney Fees
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Braden v. Marquez

Sotera Pineira obtained a $20,000 judgment against her employer, Alliance Health Inc., for a work-related injury. Alliance subsequently sold its assets, prompting Pineira to pursue an alter ego theory against Frank Braden and Bill Ehrhardt, alleging they were Alliance's alter egos to satisfy the judgment. Ehrhardt filed a special appearance, and both Braden and Ehrhardt filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to add them to the lawsuit after the original judgment became final. The trial court denied both motions, prompting Braden and Ehrhardt (relators) to seek a writ of mandamus. The appellate court denied leave to file the petition for writ of mandamus, finding no clear abuse of discretion in the denial of the special appearance and no extraordinary circumstances warranting mandamus relief for the plea to the jurisdiction.

MandamusSpecial AppearancePlea to JurisdictionAlter EgoCorporate VeilPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionEnforcement of JudgmentAbuse of DiscretionAdequate Remedy by Appeal
References
18
Case No. 13-02-529-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2003

in Re: C & H News Co.

The relator, Nueces News Agency, Inc., d/b/a ETD KroMar, Southern Division (also known as C & H News Co.), petitioned the Thirteenth District Court of Texas for a writ of mandamus. The relator sought to compel arbitration in a wrongful death suit brought by Odilia Gallegos and others (real parties in interest) following the death of an employee, Jesus Gallegos, Sr. The respondent, Judge Rolando Olvera of the 357th District Court of Cameron County, had denied the relator's motion to compel arbitration. This appellate court previously denied mandamus relief due to an incomplete record. Upon a second review with a complete record, the Court found that the arbitration agreement, by incorporating an employee handbook, allowed the relator to unilaterally amend the types of claims subject to arbitration. Consequently, the Court ruled that the arbitration agreement was an illusory promise, lacking mutuality of obligation, and therefore unenforceable. The petition for writ of mandamus was denied, affirming the trial court's decision.

MandamusArbitration AgreementIllusory PromiseEmployment ContractMutuality of ObligationUnilateral AmendmentFederal Arbitration ActAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionContract Interpretation
References
29
Case No. 01-25-00057-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2025

In Re Gulf Coast Flooring & Services, Inc. v. the State of Texas

Relator, Gulf Coast Flooring & Services, LLC, sought a writ of mandamus to challenge a trial court's order that denied its plea to the jurisdiction and plea in abatement. The relator argued that the real parties in interest, including the Estate of Alexander Uzcategui, failed to exhaust administrative remedies with the Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers’ Compensation, claiming the division has exclusive jurisdiction over employee versus independent contractor status. A recent Texas Supreme Court decision, Univ. of Tex. Rio Grande Valley v. Oteka, was referenced by both sides, with differing interpretations regarding its impact on the mandamus relief. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus. However, this denial was without prejudice, allowing the relator to request the probate court to reconsider its ruling in light of the Oteka decision.

Writ of MandamusPlea to the JurisdictionPlea in AbatementAdministrative RemediesWorkers' CompensationExclusive JurisdictionIndependent Contractor StatusEmployee StatusProbate CourtCourt of Appeals
References
2
Case No. 13-22-00376-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

in Re Berry Contracting, LP D/B/A Bay Ltd. and Juan Hernandez

Relators Berry Contracting, LP d/b/a Bay Ltd. and Juan Hernandez filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to set aside a July 28, 2022 order which concluded they failed to prove the affirmative defense of exclusive remedy in a workers’ compensation case. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals in Texas stayed the trial court proceedings and requested a response from real parties in interest Gernal Mann and Jennifer Mann. Subsequently, the parties entered into settlement discussions and filed a joint motion to dismiss the mandamus proceeding and to lift the stay, stating that the underlying matters had been resolved. The Court granted the joint motion, reinstated the case, lifted the previously imposed stay, and dismissed the petition for writ of mandamus as moot.

Writ of MandamusWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedySettlementMootnessDismissalCourt of AppealsTexasJoint MotionStay Lifted
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re David's Supermarkets, Inc.

Dennis Taylor filed a lawsuit against his employer, David’s Supermarkets, Inc., for work-related injuries. David’s moved to compel arbitration of Taylor’s claims under its dispute resolution plan, but Judge F.B. McGregor, Jr. of the 66th District Court of Hill County denied the motion. David’s then sought a writ of mandamus from the appellate court to compel arbitration. The court analyzed the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and Texas public policy, concluding that state public policy could not override the FAA's mandate favoring arbitration. Consequently, the court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, directing Judge McGregor to order arbitration for Taylor’s claims.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActMandamusTexas Public PolicyEmployment DisputeWork-Related InjuryDispute Resolution PlanSupremacy ClauseJudicial ReviewEmployer Benefits Program
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 509 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