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

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. 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. DC-14-07255
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2015

in Re: Michelin North America, Inc.

This case is an Original Mandamus Proceeding arising from a product liability lawsuit in the 134th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas. Plaintiffs, Samuel Medina, Obdulia Medina, Natalye Medina, and Navil Gibson, are suing Michelin North America, Inc. and Jose Bustillo d/b/a Mundo Cars following a catastrophic tire failure that left Obdulia Medina quadriplegic. The core of the dispute involves extensive discovery requests by the plaintiffs for Michelin's internal documents, such as aspect specifications, technical notes, and adjustment data, essential for proving alleged design and manufacturing defects. Michelin resisted these requests, citing trade secret privilege and arguing overbreadth. The court issued several rulings, largely granting motions to compel discovery (with narrowed scope), to depose Michelin employees, and to designate responsible third parties. However, a stay was granted for the production of aspect specifications and financial information, pending potential mandamus review, while Michelin's motion to bifurcate the trial for punitive damages was also granted.

Product LiabilityTire DefectManufacturing DefectDesign DefectDiscovery DisputeTrade SecretsMandamusPunitive DamagesBifurcated TrialTire Aging
References
56
Case No. 11-23-00282-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

In Re Richard Scherer v. the State of Texas

Richard Scherer, a former employee of Endeavor Energy Resources, L.P. and Endeavor Petroleum, LLC, initiated a mandamus proceeding challenging discovery orders issued by the 385th District Court of Midland County. Scherer's underlying suit alleged unlawful employment practices under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, specifically discrimination based on age and national origin, and a hostile work environment. The Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's order compelling discovery of various items, including income tax returns, medical records, witness communications, non-economic damage calculations, email and social media information, income forms, and attorney-client agreements. The appellate court partially granted Scherer's petition, finding abuses of discretion in the scope of several discovery requests and providing guidance on the proper assertion of privileges and the "marshaling of evidence" in discovery.

Employment LawCivil ProcedureDiscovery AbuseMandamus ReliefDiscrimination ClaimsTexas Labor LawPrivacy RightsAttorney FeesWork-Product DoctrinePatient-Litigant Exception
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Accident Fund Gen. Ins. Co.

Ricky Sayaz, an injured employee, sued his employer, Coil Tubing Solutions, LLC, for wrongful discharge and retaliation, and also sued his workers' compensation carrier, Accident Fund General Insurance Company, and its adjuster, Kriste Henderson, for aiding and abetting, tortious interference, and conspiracy, alleging misuse of the "bona fide offer of employment" process to justify his termination. Accident Fund and Henderson sought a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that the Division of Workers' Compensation held exclusive jurisdiction. The trial court denied this plea, leading to this original proceeding. The higher court determined that Sayaz's claims against Accident Fund and Henderson arise from the statutory claims-handling process and fall under the Division's exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the court conditionally granted mandamus relief to Accident Fund and Henderson, directing the trial court to dismiss claims against them for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, while denying mandamus relief to Coil Tubing Solutions, LLC.

Workers' CompensationExclusive JurisdictionMandamus ReliefBona Fide Offer of EmploymentRetaliatory DischargeTortious InterferenceConspiracyClaims HandlingAdministrative RemediesSubject-Matter Jurisdiction
References
9
Case No. 04-19-00860-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2020

in Re Vilore Foods Company, Inc.

In this original mandamus proceeding, Relator Vilore Foods Company, Inc. challenged the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction. Vilore Foods argued that Catalina Castillo, the real party in interest, failed to exhaust her administrative remedies concerning a workplace injury claim, thus depriving the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, agreed with Vilore Foods, finding that Castillo did not pursue her workers' compensation claim through the Division of Workers’ Compensation after her benefits were denied by the carrier. Instead, she filed a lawsuit alleging negligence, negligent supervision, and misrepresentation. The appellate court held that the Workers’ Compensation Act vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Workers’ Compensation Division, requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before a trial court can assume jurisdiction. Consequently, the court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to vacate its prior order and dismiss Castillo's cause for lack of jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationMandamusJurisdictionAdministrative RemediesPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Court of AppealsEmployer LiabilityEmployee InjuryNegligenceExclusive Jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut v. Mayfield

The Supreme Court reviewed an original mandamus proceeding where the trial court ordered Travelers Indemnity Company to pay the attorney's fees for claimant Aliene Reed in a workers' compensation suit. Travelers contended the trial court abused its discretion by requiring it to fund opposing counsel's fees without statutory or inherent authority. The Supreme Court agreed, finding no express statutory authorization for such fee-shifting and rejecting the argument for inherent judicial authority in this context. The Court concluded that compelling a party to advance the litigation costs of the opposition on an ongoing basis unfairly skewed the litigation process, rendering a remedy by appeal inadequate. Consequently, the writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, directing the trial court to vacate the order for Travelers to pay Reed's attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation LawAttorney's FeesMandamus ReliefJudicial DiscretionFee-ShiftingIndigent RepresentationStatutory ConstructionInherent Judicial AuthorityAppellate ReviewDue Process Rights
References
14
Case No. 08-04-00259-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2005

in Re: Dillard Department Stores, Inc. and Grizelda Reeder

This is an original proceeding in mandamus where Dillard Department Stores, Inc. and Grizelda Reeder (Relators) sought to compel arbitration of a defamation claim filed by their former employee, Andrea Martinez. Dillard's argued that Ms. Martinez's defamation claim fell within the scope of a 2000 arbitration agreement. The trial court denied Dillard's motion to compel arbitration, finding the defamation claim was not covered. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the defamation claim did not fall under "personal injuries arising from a termination" or "violations of common law affecting economic terms of employment" as defined in the 2000 Rules of Arbitration. Therefore, the writ of mandamus was denied.

ArbitrationDefamationEmployment LawMandamusContract InterpretationScope of Arbitration AgreementJudicial AdmissionPersonal InjuryTexas Court of AppealsFederal Arbitration Act
References
20
Case No. 08-07-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2008

in Re: Randy J. Pollet, M. D.

In this original proceeding, Dr. Randy J. Pollet, M.D., sought mandamus relief, challenging the trial court's failure to rule on his motion to dismiss a medical malpractice claim filed by Mr. Rafael Martinez, pursuant to the Texas Medical Liability Act. The trial court took Dr. Pollet's motion "under advisement" and deferred a ruling until after a deposition, which Dr. Pollet argued forced him to expend unnecessary resources and frustrated legislative intent. The Eighth District Court of Appeals in El Paso, Texas, found that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to rule within a reasonable time. The court conditionally granted mandamus relief, instructing the trial court to rule on the motion to dismiss, without dictating the outcome. This decision underscores the importance of prompt judicial action to enforce statutory provisions intended to prevent prolonged litigation in certain medical liability cases.

MandamusMedical MalpracticeMotion to DismissExpert ReportAbuse of DiscretionTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTrial CourtAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationOriginal Proceeding
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People ex rel. Sandnes v. Sheriff of Kings County

The relator was found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to imprisonment for violating a temporary injunction. A writ of habeas corpus was obtained, challenging the legality of the commitment. The court, presided over by Pecora, J. in Engs county, sustained the writ. It found that the original injunction was void because it was issued without the requisite notice under Civil Practice Act § 882, and failed to comply with Civil Practice Act § 876-a, which governs injunctions in labor disputes. The court had exceeded its jurisdiction by proceeding without proper findings, notice, and proof of efforts to settle the dispute. Additionally, the relator was unlawfully denied a jury trial in the contempt proceeding as mandated by Judiciary Law § 753-a, and the commitment order itself was defective for not detailing the circumstances of the contempt. Therefore, the relator was discharged.

Habeas CorpusContempt of CourtTemporary InjunctionLabor DisputeJudicial JurisdictionCivil Practice Act ViolationsJudiciary Law ApplicationLack of NoticeDenial of Jury TrialVoid Orders
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 12,426 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