Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 15-25-00013-CV

Regular Panel Decision

May 07, 2025

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Broadmoor Austin Associates leased office space to the Texas government, specifically the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), through the Texas Facilities Commission (TFC). Rent has been unpaid for nearly two years due to alleged misconduct by state officials. Broadmoor asserts that sovereign immunity does not bar its claims for breach of contract, citing Chapter 114's express waiver for contracts involving construction and related services. Additionally, Broadmoor brings ultra vires claims against TFC Executive Director Mike Novak and HHSC Deputy Executive Commissioner Roland Niles, alleging their actions were beyond legal authority or a failure to perform ministerial duties. Broadmoor seeks prospective injunctive and declaratory relief to ensure these officials comply with state law, specifically regarding the availability of appropriated funds for the lease.

Sovereign ImmunityBreach of ContractUltra Vires DoctrineState AgenciesGovernment ContractsLease AgreementsLegislative AppropriationsExecutive AuthorityJudicial ReviewTexas Facilities Commission

References

Case No. 15-25-00012-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 17, 2025

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

This is an interlocutory appeal from a denial-in-part of Appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction. Appellee filed an action against the State of Texas, TFC, HHSC, Executive Director Mike Novak of TFC, and Deputy Executive Commissioner for System Support Services Division of HHSC Rolland Niles alleging causes of action for breach of lease, ultra vires conduct related to the termination of the lease, and declaratory relief. Appellants argue that the trial court erred in denying their plea because Chapter 114 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code does not waive sovereign immunity for the State of Texas, HHSC, or TFC for breach of lease claims, and the lease is not a contract for goods or services covered by Chapter 114. Furthermore, Appellants contend that the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) does not waive sovereign immunity for Appellee's declaratory judgment claim as it does not challenge the constitutionality or validity of a statute, and Appellee has not alleged a cognizable ultra vires claim against the state officials. Appellants seek reversal of the partial denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and dismissal of Appellee's claims.

Sovereign ImmunityBreach of LeaseDeclaratory JudgmentUltra ViresTexas Civil Practices and Remedies CodeTexas Government CodeAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionState AgenciesContract Law

References

Case No. No. 91-16599-B

Regular Panel Decision

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

The Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Facility ("Facility") sued Personnel Services, Inc. ("PSI"), an employee leasing company, alleging that PSI misrepresented its employer status to procure lower workers’ compensation insurance rates for its client companies. The trial court found PSI misrepresented its status but issued a take-nothing judgment, citing the affirmative defenses of waiver, ratification, and estoppel. On appeal, the court examined whether the Facility had sufficient specific knowledge of PSI's fraud to bar recovery. The appellate court concluded that the Facility's general awareness of the staff leasing industry was insufficient to establish specific knowledge of PSI's misrepresentations. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a determination of damages on the Facility’s fraud claim.

fraudworkers' compensation insuranceemployee leasingmisrepresentationexperience modifieraffirmative defenseswaiverratificationestoppelemployer status

References

Case No. 03-01-00326-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 22, 2002

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

The appellants, Sunbeam Environmental Services, Inc. and Alphonso Solomon and Company, Inc., challenged a judgment favoring the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility. The district court found them jointly and severally liable for unpaid workers' compensation premiums, interest, and attorney's fees. The appellants raised issues concerning the statute of limitations, sufficiency of evidence, pre-suit notice for attorney's fees, and authorization of attorneys. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the cause not barred by limitations, the evidence sufficient, and the attorney's fees and authorization issues resolved in favor of the judgment.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceUnpaid PremiumsStatute of LimitationsSufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesJoint and Several LiabilityPayroll AuditInsurance Policy InterpretationAppellate ReviewTravis County

References

Case No. 03-94-00089-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 29, 1995

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility (Facility) sued Personnel Services, Inc. (PSI) for misrepresenting its employer status to obtain lower insurance rates for client companies. The trial court found PSI's misrepresentation but ruled for PSI based on affirmative defenses of waiver, ratification, and estoppel. On appeal, the court found no specific evidence that the Facility knew of PSI's particular fraudulent misrepresentations, only general awareness of the employee leasing industry's practices. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's judgment, finding the affirmative defenses improperly applied, and remanded the case for a determination of damages.

Workers' Compensation FraudEmployee LeasingAffirmative DefensesWaiverRatificationEstoppelEmployer StatusExperience ModifierInsurance PremiumsTexas Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The appellants, Sunbeam Environmental Services, Inc. and Alphonso Solomon and Company, Inc., challenged a district court judgment that found them jointly and severally liable to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Facility for unpaid insurance premiums, interest, and attorney’s fees. The appellants raised issues concerning the statute of limitations, sufficiency of evidence regarding contract terms, ASC's liability, and premium calculations, as well as the award of attorney’s fees and attorney authorization. The appellate court determined that the statute of limitations did not bar the claim, as the period commenced from the premium invoice date, not the policy expiration. Furthermore, the court found ample evidence to support the district court's findings on contract validity, ASC's shared financial responsibility, and accurate premium calculations. Ultimately, the judgment awarding unpaid premiums, interest, and attorney's fees to the Facility was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationInsurance PremiumsStatute of LimitationsSufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesJoint and Several LiabilityPayroll AuditCorporate OwnershipAppellate ReviewContract Dispute

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 21, 2000

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

This case concerns Sylvester Clarke's claims of employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII against One Source Facility Services, Inc. Clarke, an African-American male, alleged discrimination stemming from a refusal of non-union work, which he claimed led to his removal from a position and a series of adverse employment actions. He pursued these grievances through union complaints and two administrative complaints with the New York State Division of Human Rights in 1996 and 1998. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the discrimination claim, finding a lack of evidence for racial animus. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding a potential pattern of retaliatory conduct by the employer following Clarke's protected activities.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeTitle VIISummary JudgmentMcDonnell-Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretextRacial DiscriminationUnion GrievanceAdministrative Complaint

References

Case No. 02-CV-6666L

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 29, 2008

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

Plaintiff, Curtis Brown, a Correction Officer, sued his employer, the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), and several individuals for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Sections 1981, 1983, and the New York Human Rights Law. Brown alleged a hostile work environment due to continuous harassment, verbal abuse, and physical violence by white coworkers at Elmira Correctional Facility since 2001, along with retaliatory discipline. Defendants sought summary judgment. The court dismissed claims against individual defendants under Title VII, all claims against Elmira, the State Comptroller, Civil Service, and all constructive discharge claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity or other legal deficiencies. However, the court denied summary judgment on Brown's Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims against DOCS, finding sufficient evidence of fact disputes for these claims to proceed to trial.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment LawTitle VIICivil Rights ActSection 1981Section 1983Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion

References

Case No. 03-96-00265-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jul 24, 1997

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Metro Temps, Inc. and Metromarketing Services, Inc. appealed the trial court's dismissal of their claims against Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility, Wm. Rigg Co., and Employers Insurance of Wausau. The appellants had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies concerning disputes over workers' compensation policy premiums and surcharges. The Third District Court of Appeals, Austin, affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that a district court lacks jurisdiction over claims, even those outside an administrative body's direct authority, when resolution depends on issues within the administrative body's jurisdiction and those remedies have not been exhausted. The court also dismissed the appellants' venue transfer claim due to insufficient record presentation.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative RemediesJurisdictionExhaustion of RemediesDeclaratory JudgmentBreach of ContractFraudConspiracyVenue TransferTexas Insurance Code

References

Case No. 3-94-122-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 18, 1995

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

The Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility (Facility) appealed a district court judgment that affirmed an order by the State Board of Insurance. The Board had ordered the Facility to indemnify several servicing companies for legal expenses incurred in litigation brought by Standard Financial Indemnity Company (SFIC). The Facility argued that Article 5.76-2, section 2.05(i) of the Texas Insurance Code, which states the Facility 'may not indemnify the servicing companies,' terminated the servicing companies' right to indemnification. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the servicing companies had a vested contractual right to indemnification which arose when they entered into servicing company agreements, and that section 2.05(i) could not be applied retroactively to impair these vested rights. The court found that the law existing at the time the contracts were made, which included the Facility's bylaws allowing for indemnification, was incorporated into the agreements.

Workers' CompensationInsurance LawContractual RightsVested RightsRetroactive Application of LawIndemnificationStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Insurance Code

References

Showing 1-10 of 9,421 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 15-25-00013-CV

Regular Panel Decision

May 07, 2025

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Sovereign ImmunityBreach of ContractUltra Vires DoctrineState AgenciesGovernment ContractsLease AgreementsLegislative AppropriationsExecutive AuthorityJudicial ReviewTexas Facilities Commission

References

Case No. 15-25-00012-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 17, 2025

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

Sovereign ImmunityBreach of LeaseDeclaratory JudgmentUltra ViresTexas Civil Practices and Remedies CodeTexas Government CodeAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionState AgenciesContract Law

References

Case No. No. 91-16599-B

Regular Panel Decision

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

fraudworkers' compensation insuranceemployee leasingmisrepresentationexperience modifieraffirmative defenseswaiverratificationestoppelemployer status

References

Case No. 03-01-00326-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 22, 2002

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

References

Case No. 03-94-00089-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 29, 1995

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Workers' Compensation FraudEmployee LeasingAffirmative DefensesWaiverRatificationEstoppelEmployer StatusExperience ModifierInsurance PremiumsTexas Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Workers' CompensationInsurance PremiumsStatute of LimitationsSufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesJoint and Several LiabilityPayroll AuditCorporate OwnershipAppellate ReviewContract Dispute

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 21, 2000

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

Employment DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeTitle VIISummary JudgmentMcDonnell-Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretextRacial DiscriminationUnion GrievanceAdministrative Complaint

References

Case No. 02-CV-6666L

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 29, 2008

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

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment LawTitle VIICivil Rights ActSection 1981Section 1983Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion

References

Case No. 03-96-00265-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jul 24, 1997

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Workers' CompensationAdministrative RemediesJurisdictionExhaustion of RemediesDeclaratory JudgmentBreach of ContractFraudConspiracyVenue TransferTexas Insurance Code

References

Case No. 3-94-122-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 18, 1995

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

Workers' CompensationInsurance LawContractual RightsVested RightsRetroactive Application of LawIndemnificationStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Insurance Code

References

Showing 1-10 of 9,421 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.