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. ADJ9290968 ADJ9290970
Regular
May 01, 2017

MARIA T. GARCIA vs. ALHAMBRA HEALTHCARE WELLNESS CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Alhambra Healthcare Wellness Center's petition for removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be inadequate. The WCAB found that the defendant failed to demonstrate either of these conditions based on the administrative law judge's report. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied.

RemovalPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedyADJ9290968ADJ9290970
References
2
Case No. 08-05-00033-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2006

Martha Gray, Rose Marie Salvato, and Edmund Higginbotham of the Estate of Mary Ann Higginbotham v. Woodville Health Care Center Dba Wodville Convalescent Center Dba Cantex Health Care Centers Dba Denison Healthcare Denter Ltd. Co. & Kerry Evans M.D.

This case concerns an appeal by Martha Gray, Rose Marie Salvato, and Edmund Higginbotham, Executor of the Estate of Mary Ann Higginbotham, from summary judgments granted in favor of Dr. Kerry Evans and Woodville Healthcare Center. Appellants filed a wrongful death suit alleging medical malpractice, gross negligence, and negligence per se following the death of Brayton Gray, who was a patient at Woodville nursing home under Dr. Evans' care. The central issue was whether the Appellants provided sufficient evidence of causation to support their claims. The court found that the expert testimony presented was conclusory or speculative and failed to establish the necessary causal link. Additionally, the court ruled that the Appellants lacked standing for constitutional claims and that no state action was involved for a Fourteenth Amendment violation. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Medical malpracticeWrongful deathSummary judgmentCausationExpert testimonyNursing home negligenceParkinson's diseaseConstitutional rightsFourteenth AmendmentState action
References
27
Case No. 03-17-00352-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2018

Vista Medical Center Hospital Vista Healthcare, Inc. And Surgery Specialty Hospital, Inc.// State Office of Risk Management v. State Office of Risk Management// Vista Medical Center Hospital Vista Healthcare, Inc. And Surgery Specialty Hospital, Inc.

This case involves cross-appeals stemming from a dispute over the appropriate reimbursement for medical services provided by Vista Medical Center Hospital and its affiliates to injured employees covered by the State Office of Risk Management (SORM) under Texas workers’ compensation statutes. The district court had affirmed 23 administrative orders that required SORM to make additional payments to Vista, a decision which SORM challenged on appeal citing insufficient evidence. Vista, in turn, cross-appealed the district court's denial of prejudgment interest. The appellate court found substantial evidence supported the administrative law judges' conclusion that SORM's original reimbursement model was unfair and unreasonable, and that Vista's proposed methodology was valid. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's judgment but modified it to include the prejudgment interest that Vista was statutorily entitled to.

Workers' CompensationMedical ReimbursementAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePrejudgment InterestTexas LawHealthcare ProvidersInsurance DisputesFee Guidelines
References
23
Case No. 13-15-00118-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2015

Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd., D/B/A Corpus Christi Medical Center v. Brenda Martinez

Brenda Martinez, a housekeeper for Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd. (dba Corpus Christi Medical Center), sued her employer after sustaining a shoulder injury during "trash and linen duty," which involved heavy lifting. She alleged negligence, claiming BAHG failed to provide a safe work environment and proper assistance. BAHG moved to dismiss, arguing her claim was a "health care liability claim" (HCLC) under the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA) requiring an expert report. The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding Martinez's claim was not an HCLC as it lacked a substantive relationship with the provision of medical care and instead concerned general workplace safety, not duties specific to a healthcare provider.

Texas Medical Liability ActHealth Care Liability ClaimWorkplace Safety StandardsEmployer NegligenceExpert Report RuleAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationRoss factorsMedical Professional DutiesNon-subscriber Employer
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simmons v. Healthcare Centers of Texas, Inc.

Jewel Simmons was injured in a fall at a nursing home operated by Healthcare Centers of Texas, Inc. (H.C.T.) on September 27, 1997, and subsequently died on October 9, 1997. Bobby Simmons, individually and as administrator of Jewel Simmons's estate, sued H.C.T. for negligence and breach of contract. H.C.T. sought summary judgment, asserting the two-year statute of limitations under the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act had run. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the claim untimely even with a seventy-five-day tolling provision. On appeal, Simmons challenged the trial court's application of the tolling provision, but the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, noting that Simmons failed to challenge all potential grounds for the summary judgment, specifically H.C.T.'s contention that the statute of limitations began on September 27, 1997.

statute of limitationssummary judgmentmedical malpracticenegligencebreach of contractnursing home liabilitywrongful deathtolling provisionMedical Liability and Insurance Improvement ActTexas Constitution
References
31
Case No. ADJ17886767
Regular
Apr 15, 2025

SHARON CALLANDER vs. OAKLAND HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTER, LLC; XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE

Sharon Callander, an activity assistant, sustained an industrial injury to her right wrist and right hand while employed by Oakland Healthcare & Wellness Center. The defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's findings, arguing the applicant was not in the course of employment. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration to clarify findings but affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant sustained an industrial injury AOE/COE, finding she was conferring a benefit on the employer regardless of her schedule.

AOE/COECourse of EmploymentPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909WCJ's ReportCredibility DeterminationsBenefit to EmployerUnscheduled WorkdaySubstantial EvidenceMedical Probability
References
9
Case No. 08-23-00033-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2024

Mountain View Health & Rehabilitation Center, Inc., Creative Solutions in Healthcare, Inc., and Lidia Moya v. Mary Horton Keele

Appellee Mary Horton Keele sued Appellants Mountain View Health & Rehabilitation Center, Inc., Creative Solutions in Healthcare, Inc., and Lidia Moya (collectively, Premises Parties), alleging she slipped and fell on their premises as an employee. The Premises Parties moved to compel arbitration, citing an employer-employee arbitration agreement Keele had signed, which referred to her employer as "the facility" or "the company." The trial court denied the motion, leading to this appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Keele's admission of signing the agreement and her own pleadings identifying the Premises Parties as her employer bound her to arbitrate. The court reasoned that Keele could not dispute the agreement's authenticity or avoid arbitration by raising factual disputes about her employer’s correct legal name, given her admissions.

Arbitration AgreementEmployer-Employee DisputeSlip and FallPremises LiabilityMeeting of the MindsJudicial AdmissionsAppellate ReviewTexas LawContract InterpretationAuthenticity of Documents
References
27
Case No. 03-03-00435-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission/East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery And Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. v. East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery/Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case involves the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission's failure to establish fee guidelines for ambulatory surgical centers under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. East Side Surgical Center, Clinic for Special Surgery, and intervenor Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. (collectively "East Side") sued the Commission to invalidate certain default rules that applied when specific guidelines were absent. The district court declared one rule (133.304(i)) invalid and enjoined its enforcement, citing unlawful delegation of authority. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment regarding the rule's invalidity and dissolved the injunction, citing a Texas Supreme Court decision finding no unlawful delegation. The court affirmed that East Side was not entitled to its usual and customary fee in the absence of specific guidelines.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawDelegation of AuthorityRulemakingAmbulatory Surgical CentersJudicial ReviewInsurance CarrierFee GuidelinesFair and Reasonable RatesStatutory Interpretation
References
38
Case No. 2018-02-0196
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2019

Linsey, Shelia v. Acadia Healthcare Company d/b/a Delta Medical Center-Memphis

This case concerns an employee, Sheila Linsey, who sought workers' compensation benefits for a mental injury allegedly stemming from a workplace assault. Although the employer, Acadia Healthcare Company, provided benefits for physical injuries, Linsey filed her petition for mental health benefits over a year after the last payment. The employer moved for summary judgment, citing the statute of limitations. The trial court denied the motion, but the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed, finding that the discovery rule did not excuse the untimely filing. The Board determined Linsey was aware of a compensable injury soon after the assault and therefore her petition for mental injury benefits was time-barred. The case is remanded for entry of a partial summary judgment in favor of the employer.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsMental Injury ClaimWorkplace AssaultDiscovery RuleSummary JudgmentAppealTimeliness of ClaimPsychiatric CarePost-Traumatic Stress Disorder
References
10
Case No. 03-10-00711-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2013

Rita Murdock v. Trisun Healthcare, LLC D/B/A Park Place Health Center

This case addresses whether Trisun Healthcare, LLC could compel its employee, Rita Murdock, into arbitration for a workplace injury claim. The trial court's decision to compel arbitration was based on an acknowledgment of an arbitration agreement form and a prior agreement with Murdock's former employer, PM Texas Leasing Company, LLC. The appellate court conducted a de novo review, determining that Trisun failed to meet its burden of proving a valid arbitration agreement directly with Murdock or that it could enforce the PM Leasing Agreement as a party or third-party beneficiary. The court found that the acknowledgment form lacked material terms for a binding agreement and that the PM Leasing Agreement did not include Trisun as an enforceable party. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Arbitration AgreementEmployee DisputeWorkplace InjuryNegligenceThird-Party BeneficiaryContract LawFederal Arbitration ActDe Novo ReviewAppellate CourtTexas Law
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 3,087 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