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. 03-21-00120-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2022

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Christopher Wise, a former Austin Police Academy cadet, sued Brian Manley (APD Chief) and six other APD officers after sustaining severe injuries, including heat exhaustion and stroke, during a stress reaction training in October 2018. Wise alleged that officers intentionally discouraged cadets from hydrating despite high temperatures and failed to provide timely medical aid. The defendants sought dismissal under the Texas Tort Claims Act's election-of-remedies provisions. The district court dismissed claims against the City of Austin and APD but not against the individual officers. The appellate court reversed the district court's decision, ruling that Wise's claims against the individual officers were based on conduct within the scope of their employment and could have been brought under the TTCA, thus mandating their dismissal.

Texas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityElection of RemediesScope of EmploymentPolice MisconductCadet InjuryHeat IllnessSupervisor NegligenceAppellate CourtReversal
References
25
Case No. 13-01-00119-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

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
Apr 10, 2018

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case addresses post-verdict motions following a jury trial where plaintiffs Shuay'b Greenaway, Sharon Knight, and Avery Knight sued the Incorporated Village of Hempstead, County of Nassau, and several police officers for constitutional violations including false imprisonment, excessive force, and unlawful entry. The jury found defendants liable on multiple counts, awarding substantial damages. The District Court largely denied motions for judgment as a matter of law. While upholding most liability findings, the Court granted remittitur for Mr. Greenaway's excessive force award, reducing it to $2.5 million, and for the unlawful entry/trespass claim, reducing it to $10,000. Punitive damages against individual officers were upheld, but awards for gross negligence and failure to intervene were reduced to zero.

Excessive ForceFalse ImprisonmentUnlawful EntryTrespassMunicipal LiabilityPunitive DamagesRule 50(b) MotionRule 59 MotionRemittiturQualified Immunity
References
59
Case No. 07-14-00405-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2014

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Korey Ferguson, a police officer for the City of Plainview, Texas, was terminated after an alleged incident of excessive force involving citizen Amber Washington. Ferguson contended that the City violated Texas Government Code Sections 614.023(a) and (b) by failing to provide him with a copy of Washington's signed complaint before taking disciplinary action. The Trial Court ruled in favor of Ferguson, ordering his reinstatement with back pay, based on the belief that noncompliance with the statute mandated this remedy. The City of Plainview is appealing this decision, arguing that reinstatement is not a mandatory remedy for the statutory violation, that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support Ferguson's reinstatement given his unfitness as an officer, and that the order to reinstate him is against public policy.

Police MisconductExcessive ForceReinstatementDue ProcessStatutory ComplianceTexas Government CodeCivil ServiceAdministrative LawPublic PolicyAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. 03-11-00594-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2014

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Michael Hamilton, an Austin Police Department officer, was indefinitely suspended and sought an appeal with the Austin Firefighters’ and Police Officers’ Civil Service Commission. His appeal was rejected as deficient for failing to include specific statutory language. Hamilton then sued various City of Austin officials and the City, seeking declaratory relief, a writ of mandamus, and to set aside the Commission's decision, along with a breach of contract claim. The district court granted the City's plea to the jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, ruling that the district court had jurisdiction over constitutional and ultra vires claims against the officials but lacked jurisdiction for reinstatement, back pay, lost benefits, and the breach of contract claim due to unexhausted administrative remedies.

Governmental ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionDeclaratory Judgment ActMandamusUltra ViresCivil Service ActExhaustion of Administrative RemediesCollective Bargaining AgreementStandingConstitutional Law
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2015

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Officer Jamie Harvel, an Austin Police Officer, was injured in a car accident while traveling to a temporary work assignment. The City of Austin, a self-insured entity, denied his workers' compensation claim, a decision upheld by the Division of Workers' Compensation. Harvel and the Austin Police Association sought judicial review and declaratory judgments regarding the scope of employment for peace officers and employer-directed travel. Appellees (the Division and Commissioner) filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted, leading to this interlocutory appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that sovereign immunity barred the declaratory relief claims as they sought interpretation of rights under a statute rather than challenging a statute's validity, and the declaratory judgment claims were duplicative of the judicial review action. The Association's claims also lacked a justiciable controversy.

Workers' CompensationSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionDeclaratory Judgment ActScope of EmploymentJudicial ReviewInterlocutory AppealTexas LawPolice OfficerTravel
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1996

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Approximately 2,000 disabled former New York City police officers filed 16 consolidated actions, alleging that the practice of providing supplemental benefits to police officers who retire after twenty years of service while denying those same benefits to officers who retire due to a disability discriminates against them in violation of Titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as well as various state laws. The defendants, various individuals and entities involved in administering the New York City Police Department benefit programs, moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs are not protected parties under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, as they are not 'qualified individuals with a disability' and are seeking preferential rather than nondiscriminatory treatment. The ADEA claims were dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lastly, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, leading to their dismissal as well.

Disability discriminationADA claimsRehabilitation Act claimsADEA claimsPolice officersRetirement benefitsSupplemental benefitsMotion to dismissQualified individual with a disabilityEmployment discrimination
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Plaintiff Charles B. MeLaurin filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous New Rochelle police officers and city officials, including Peter Kornas, Louis Falcone, Brian Fagan, David Lornegan, Edward Martinez, Dominic Procopio, Mayor Timothy Idoni, and the City of New Rochelle. MeLaurin alleged constitutional rights violations stemming from two arrests: one for assault on August 6, 2001, and another for criminal contempt on September 28, 2002. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting qualified immunity and failure to state a claim. The court granted dismissal with prejudice for most defendants, finding their actions objectively reasonable or lacking personal involvement, or due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim or comply with state law. Claims against Officers Lynch, Lore, Conca, Al-Fattaah, Kamau, and Navarette were dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal involvement. Officer Dina Lynn Moretti's motion was converted to one for summary judgment, giving the plaintiff 45 days to provide evidence regarding probable cause for the second arrest. State law claims were also dismissed due to non-compliance with New York General Municipal Law notice-of-claim requirements.

Excessive ForceFalse ArrestMalicious ProsecutionQualified ImmunityPro Se LitigationMunicipal LiabilityMonell ClaimFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56Civil Rights Violation
References
59
Case No. 03-96-00130-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1997

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Several police officers sued their employer, the City of Midland, and supervisors for alleged unlawful employment practices, including retaliation due to their disabilities and prior lawsuits. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment regarding claims of tortious interference, intentional infliction of economic injury, and requests for back pay for constitutional violations. However, it reversed and remanded the judgment concerning official and derivative sovereign immunity, intentional infliction of emotional distress, reinstatement for constitutional violations, and breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing, finding genuine issues of material fact. The court also vacated and dismissed the Texas Labor Code claims due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Official ImmunitySovereign ImmunityEmployment LawRetaliation ClaimsDisability DiscriminationSummary Judgment ReversalTexas Constitutional RightsIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingTortious Interference with Contract
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Nancy Ostensen initiated an action against Suffolk County, its Police Department, Officer Thomas Gallagher, and private individuals Patricia Capucci and Rosemary Kneeht, asserting constitutional violations under Section 1983 and various New York state law claims. The Plaintiff alleged unreasonable search and seizure, and due process violations stemming from an incident where the private defendants entered a residence where Ostensen lived, with Officer Gallagher's alleged non-intervention. The County Defendants sought summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment, determining there was no evidence of conspiracy between the state and private actors, that Ostensen lacked a possessory interest in the property for an unreasonable seizure claim, and that Officer Gallagher was shielded by qualified immunity as his actions were objectively reasonable. Consequently, all federal claims were dismissed, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1983Fourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentUnreasonable Search and SeizureDue ProcessQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentState ActionConspiracyMunicipal Liability
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 3,339 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