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. PUC Docket No. 34298
Regular Panel Decision

Coastal Habitat Alliance v. Public Utility Commission

Justice Jan P. Patterson writes a concurring and dissenting opinion regarding the majority's decision to affirm the district court's granting of pleas to the jurisdiction in a case involving the Public Utility Commission and AEP Texas Central Company. The dissent argues that the Coastal Habitat Alliance, despite being a non-party, possesses an independent right to judicial review of the Commission's final order under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), citing Mega Child Care. Justice Patterson asserts that the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) does not prohibit such non-party review and that the Alliance has exhausted its administrative remedies. The opinion concurs with the majority on the proper dismissal of claims brought under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) and constitutional due process grounds but disputes the majority's stance on mandamus review for the Commission's discretionary denial of intervention. The dissent would reverse the district court's order in part and remand for further proceedings.

Administrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewPlea to the JurisdictionPublic Utility CommissionNon-Party InterventionExhaustion of Administrative RemediesDue ProcessWrit of MandamusStatutory InterpretationTexas Law
References
36
Case No. 03-11-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2014

State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC// Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor// State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Steering Committee

This case is an administrative appeal concerning a final order from the Public Utility Commission (PUC) that increased rates for Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, reviewed the district court's judgment on various regulatory and financial issues. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment on eight of twelve issues but reversed and remanded four issues back to the Commission for further proceedings. These reversed issues included the university discount, municipal franchise-fee expenses, the calculation of 'lead days' for the franchise-tax component of cash working capital, and the federal income-tax expense. The court's decision hinged on statutory interpretation and the application of regulatory standards in the context of utility ratemaking.

Electric Utility RegulationRate IncreaseAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Public Utility CommissionOncor Electric Delivery CompanyState Universities DiscountFranchise TaxFederal Income Tax ExpenseAutomated Metering Systems
References
110
Case No. 03-01-00400-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann v. City of Round Rock Round Rock Development Review Board Frank Del Castillo, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board Terry Hagood, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board

Appellants Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann appealed the district court's judgment affirming the Round Rock Development Review Board's denial of their permit applications for seven outdoor advertising structures. The core issue was whether the structures qualified as 'signs' and were entitled to non-conforming use status under the City's ordinance, which became effective February 27, 1997. The Court of Appeals held that four of the structures were 'signs' due to having a surface capable of displaying text, despite not yet having advertising affixed, and were therefore entitled to non-conforming use. The court reversed and remanded the Board's decisions regarding these four structures. However, it affirmed the district court's judgment for the remaining three structures, which lacked such a surface, and also upheld the constitutionality of the City's sign ordinance against a takings claim.

ZoningOutdoor AdvertisingNon-conforming UsePermit DenialExtraterritorial JurisdictionAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationMunicipal OrdinanceTexas Court of AppealsProperty Rights
References
30
Case No. 23-0273, 23-0950
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2025

Accident Fund Insurance Company of America and Texas Cotton Ginners' Trust v. Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation

Justice Young, joined by Justice Sullivan, concurs in the denial of two petitions for review, acknowledging their significant statutory-interpretation questions and implications for the role of administrative agencies versus courts. The first petition (No. 23-0273) was a facial challenge by Accident Fund Insurance Company and Texas Cotton Ginners’ Trust against the Texas Department of Insurance regarding a rule on supplemental income benefits. The court found this challenge unsuitable as it presented no concrete example of the rule directly contravening the statute. The second petition (No. 23-0950) by Accident Fund General Insurance Company challenged lifetime income benefits awarded to Rodrigo Mendiola for severe burn injuries and loss of hand function. Accident Fund argued the lower courts used an outdated judicial standard instead of current statutory law. However, the court denied review because Mendiola's injuries qualified for benefits under both standards, rendering the choice between them non-outcome-determinative. Justice Young emphasized that this denial does not reflect a settled view on these issues, which may warrant review in future, more suitable cases with clearer records.

Workers' CompensationStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewPetition for ReviewSupplemental Income BenefitsLifetime Income BenefitsFacial ChallengeWorkers' Compensation ProgramSupreme Court of Texas
References
12
Case No. 03-08-00205-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2009

Coastal Habitat Alliance v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Barry T. Smitherman, Chairman Kenneth W. Anderson, Jr., Commissioner Donna L. Nelson, Commissioner Texas Gulf Wind LLC PPM Energy, Inc. And AEP TCC

Justice Jan P. Patterson delivers a concurring and dissenting opinion, arguing that Coastal Habitat Alliance, a non-party, possesses an independent right to judicial review of the Public Utility Commission's final order under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The dissent contends that the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) is silent regarding judicial review for non-parties, thereby permitting APA review. Justice Patterson asserts that the Alliance met administrative exhaustion requirements by filing a motion for reconsideration, thus obviating the need for a redundant motion for rehearing as a non-party. While concurring with the majority on the dismissal of claims under the UDJA and the absence of a vested property right for due process claims, the dissent challenges the suggestion that the Commission's denial of intervention is exclusively reviewable by mandamus, citing its inconsistency with the nature of discretionary acts and the exhaustion doctrine.

Administrative Procedure ActPublic Utility Regulatory ActJudicial ReviewExhaustion of Administrative RemediesMandamusDue ProcessInterventionConcurring and Dissenting OpinionTexas Court of AppealsSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
42
Case No. 03-02-00246-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2004

Reliant Energy, Incorporated Office of Public Utility Counsel And Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities/Magic Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc. Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative, Inc. And City of Bryan v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Consumer Owned Power Systems City of Houston Texas Industrial Energy Consumers State of Texas And Constellation NewEnergy, Inc./Public Utility Commission of Texas And Reliant Energy, Incorporated

This case concerns appeals from a district court's judgment affirming a Public Utility Commission (PUC) final order that set cost-of-service rates for Reliant Energy, Inc.'s transmission and distribution utility (TDU). Appellants, including Reliant Energy, Office of Public Utility Counsel, and various consumer groups, challenged the PUC's decisions on rate base calculations, return on equity, and operational expenses. The district court had largely affirmed the PUC's order, finding only one aspect to be a prohibited advisory opinion. The Court of Appeals, Third District, At Austin, reversed the district court's judgment regarding the inclusion of $107.3 million for the interconnection of Merchant Plant 4, citing a lack of substantial evidence. In all other respects, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and remanded the Merchant Plant 4 issue to the Commission for further proceedings.

Utility RegulationElectricity RatesPublic Utility CommissionCost-of-ServiceRate BaseReturn on EquityConsolidated Tax SavingsTransmission and Distribution UtilityAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Perez

This document is a dissent from the denial of a petition for review. The core issue revolves around whether an employer's bankruptcy discharge prevents a wrongful death claim brought by former employees' survivors, stemming from pre-petition conduct by the debtor that caused a subsequent death. Guadalupe Garcia, a former employee of Todd Shipyards Corp., developed asbestos-related illnesses and died from mesothelioma after Todd had undergone Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. Garcia's eight daughters filed a wrongful death action against Todd. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Todd, but the court of appeals reversed this decision. Justice Hecht, joined by Justice Owen, dissents from the Court's decision to deny the petition for review, arguing that the legal question is significant, has generated conflicting interpretations in different courts regarding 'claim' definition under the Bankruptcy Code and the nature of derivative wrongful death claims, and thus warrants full oral argument and review.

Bankruptcy dischargewrongful deathasbestos exposurepre-petition conductpost-petition claimChapter 11 reorganizationFifth CircuitTexas ConstitutionLabor CodeMesothelioma
References
10
Case No. 03-03-00428-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2005

Cities of Corpus Christi, Appellants//AEP Texas Central Company Public Utility Commission of Texas And Constellation New Energy, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas and AEP Texas Central Company, Appellees//Public Utility Commission of Texas Cities of Corpus Christi Office of Public Utility Counsel And Constellation NewEnergy, Inc.

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal regarding the Public Utility Commission's authority to order AEP Texas Central Company to refund excess earnings from accelerated recovery of stranded costs. The dissenting Justice agrees with the majority on affirming the Commission's decisions concerning member account balances and demand charges. However, the dissent strongly contends that the Commission possessed the authority to mandate these refunds prior to 2004, arguing the statutory scheme was ambiguous and the Commission's action was a reasonable interpretation consistent with its duties to promote fair competition and prevent overrecovery. The dissent highlights that the majority's interpretation may lead to absurd results by limiting the Commission's ability to correct overrecovery while allowing it to address underrecovery.

Electricity DeregulationStranded CostsUtility RegulationPublic Utility CommissionRegulatory AuthorityExcess EarningsRefundsCompetitive MarketTexas Utility CodeAdministrative Law
References
12
Case No. ADJ6939280
Regular
Nov 08, 2018

ROBIN GONZALEZ vs. FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF SANTA BARBARA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns applicant Robin Gonzalez's claim for ongoing home health care services following a spinal injury. The employer's insurer denied these services via a timely Utilization Review (UR) based on the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the trial judge's decision, holding that the WCAB lacks jurisdiction to review the UR denial because the process was timely and the dispute over medical necessity must be resolved through the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process, as established in Dubon II. Applicant's treating physician can submit a new request if medically necessary, as the prior UR denial is effective for 12 months.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewMedical Treatment Utilization ScheduleJurisdictionHome Health CarePermanent DisabilityPetition to ReopenFailed Back SyndromeDubon II
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Austin v. Jennings

Mrs. Austin filed a petition for certiorari in the Chancery Court to review the Board of Review's denial of her unemployment compensation claim. Her claim stemmed from losing her job after a cash register shortage and subsequent participation in a strike. The Board denied benefits, finding her unemployment was due to a labor dispute and she failed to prove she did not belong to a class of workers participating in it. The Chancellor dismissed her petition, which the higher court affirmed, stating the petition lacked sufficient grounds to challenge the Board's decision under the relevant Tennessee Code Annotated sections. A subsequent petition to rehear the affirmance was also denied.

Unemployment compensationLabor disputeStrike participationCertiorari petitionJudicial reviewBurden of proofStatutory exceptionsGrade or class of workersChancery CourtBoard of Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 10,168 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