Texas State Courts
Texas Federal Courts
Division of Workers Compensation
State Office of Administrative Hearings
Title 6. Public Officers and Employees
Subtitle A. Provisions Generally Applicable to Public Officers and Employees
Title 10. General Government
Subtitle A. Administrative Procedure and Practice
Title 8. Health Insurance and Other Health Coverages
Subtitle D. Provider Plans
Title 14. Utilization Review and Independent Review
Title 2. Protection of Laborers
Subtitle E. Regulation of Certain Occupations
Title 5. Workers’ Compensation
Part 7. State Office of Administrative Hearings
Part 1. Texas Department of Insurance
Chapter 19. Agents Licensing
Part 2. Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers Compensation
(Claims Before Jan. 1, 1991)
(Claims On or After Jan. 1, 1991)
Part 3. Texas Certified Self-Insurer Guaranty Association
Part 4. State Office of Risk Management
Part 6. Office of Injured Employee Counsel
Calculators
Medical Lookup
Support
Quick Links
Cases & Decisions
Statutes & Rules
Cases & Decisions
Administrative Decisions
Division of Workers Compensation
State Office of Administrative Hearings
Texas Court Cases
Resources & Tools
Workers Compensation Statutes
Government Code
Title 6. Public Officers and Employees
Subtitle A. Provisions Generally Applicable to Public Officers and Employees
Title 10. General Government
Subtitle A. Administrative Procedure and Practice
Insurance Code
Title 8. Health Insurance and Other Health Coverages
Subtitle D. Provider Plans
Title 14. Utilization Review and Independent Review
Labor Code
Title 2. Protection of Laborers
Subtitle E. Regulation of Certain Occupations
Title 5. Workers' Compensation
Workers Compensation Regulations
Title 1. Administration
Part 7. State Office of Administrative Hearings
Title 28. Insurance
Part 1. Texas Department of Insurance
Chapter 19. Agents Licensing
Part 2. Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers Compensation
(Claims Before Jan. 1, 1991)
(Claims On or After Jan. 1, 1991)
Part 3. Texas Certified Self-Insurer Guaranty Association
Part 4. State Office of Risk Management
Part 6. Office of Injured Employee Counsel
Title 40. Social Services and Assistance
Part 20. Texas Workforce Commission
Chapter 815. Unemployment Insurance
Chapter 19. Agents Licensing
Subchapter B. Benefits, Claims, and Appeals
Latest Court Cases
In re ExxonMobil Corp
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston) conditionally granted mandamus and ordered the trial court to vacate its order denying ExxonMobil’s summary judgment and instead grant summary judgment and dismiss all claims because the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive-remedy bar applied. ExxonMobil proved a written §406.123 agreement and that its OCIP
- Citation: 14-25-00446-CV
- Court: 14th COA – Houston
- Date:
Texas Military Department v. Lopez
The Corpus Christi–Edinburg Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of the Texas Military Department’s plea to the jurisdiction and rendered judgment dismissing the Lopezes’ tort suit for lack of jurisdiction, holding sovereign immunity was not waived under the Texas Tort Claims Act because the crash arose from “activities
- Citation: 13-25-00150-CV
- Court: 13th COA – Corpus Christi
- Date:
Hirsch v. City of Houston
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order granting the City’s plea to the jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings, holding Hirsch presented evidence raising a fact issue that a police academy cadet can qualify as a “first responder,” which would trigger the limited waiver of governmental immunity
- Citation: 14-24-00536-CV
- Court: 14th COA – Houston
- Date:
City of Houston v. Gutierrez
The court of appeals reversed the trial court and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims after holding that the City of Houston retained governmental immunity because its firefighter was not in the course and scope of employment when the MVA occurred. The court applied the “coming-and-going” rule, concluding that the firefighter was
- Citation: 14-24-00811-CV
- Court: 14th COA – Houston
- Date:
In re Dollar Stores, Inc.
The court of appeals conditionally granted mandamus and ordered the trial court to vacate its discovery order requiring Family Dollar to produce broad incident-report data for all Texas stores (and nationwide shootings), holding those requests were overbroad and improper “fishing expeditions” under the Texas discovery rules. The court found that,
- Citation: 14-25-00668-CV
- Court: 14th COA – Houston
- Date:
Galvan v. Hyatt Regency San Antonio
The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s order granting Hyatt’s plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that Galvan’s district court petition, though styled as a “breach of contract” claim, was in substance a timely petition for judicial
- Citation: 04-24-00829-CV
- Court: 4th COA – San Antonio
- Date:
Latest AP Decisions
APD 251710
The Appeals Panel reversed and remanded the ALJ’s decision because the ALJ misstated the mechanism of injury—describing a fall over a drain instead of the actual electrocution while working on a powerline. Because this factual error affected the extent-of-injury determination, the Appeals Panel returned the case for a new decision
- Appeals Panel
APD 251691
The Appeals Panel affirmed the ALJ’s extent-of-injury findings and the correct disability period but reversed other portions of the decision. The Panel held that the ALJ exceeded the scope of the disability issue by awarding disability outside the agreed dates, and those portions were struck. The Panel also ruled that
- Appeals Panel
APD 251632
The Appeals Panel affirmed the ALJ’s extent-of-injury determination but reformed the decision to include the parties’ stipulation that statutory MMI was September 9, 2025. Because the Decision was signed after the statutory MMI date, the Panel held it was legal error for the ALJ to find the claimant had not
- Appeals Panel
APD 251609
The Appeals Panel reversed the ALJ’s award of first-quarter SIBs because the ALJ made an unappealed finding that the claimant’s underemployment during the qualifying periods was not a direct result of the compensable injury, which legally bars SIBs entitlement for both quarters. Based on that binding finding, the Panel rendered
- Appeals Panel
APD 251621
The Appeals Panel reversed all disputed determinations because the designated doctor did not have the complete medical record, including the missing emergency department records he expressly requested, before issuing opinions on extent of injury, MMI, IR, and disability.
- Appeals Panel
APD 251625
The Appeals Panel affirmed the ALJ’s extent-of-injury, MMI, and IR determinations but reformed the decision to correct clerical errors.
- Appeals Panel
News For You