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. 2015-01-0281
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2018

Tucker, David E. v. Star Transportation

David Tucker, an employee of Star Transportation, sought to change his treating physician for a shoulder injury sustained on July 1, 2015. He expressed a loss of confidence in Dr. Mejia due to perceived ineffectual treatment, improper impairment assessment methodology, and the physician's refusal to complete a Physician Certification Form. The Court, citing precedents like Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions and Baker v. Electrolux, found no legal basis to compel the employer to provide a new panel of physicians. The Court ruled that Mr. Tucker's subjective dissatisfaction and the alleged inadequacies of Dr. Mejia did not warrant a change in treating physician.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryTreating PhysicianMedical TreatmentImpairment RatingAMA GuidesTennessee LawRight to Control Medical TreatmentPhysician Certification FormMMI (Maximum Medical Improvement)
References
3
Case No. 2019-01-0399
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2021

Tate, Meshia v. Daryl Doney d/b/a Middle Tennessee Respiratory

The employee, Meshia Tate, suffered a work-related wrist injury and later a knee injury, treated by authorized physician Dr. Martin Fiala, who performed surgeries and eventually placed her at maximum medical improvement. Dissatisfied, Tate sought an unauthorized second opinion from Dr. Jeffrey Peterson, who recommended further treatment and believed a subsequent meniscal tear was work-related. The trial court sided with Tate, accepting Dr. Peterson's causation opinion and replacing Dr. Fiala as the authorized treating physician, citing Dr. Fiala's perceived failure to treat ongoing symptoms and the employer's initial failure to provide a panel of physicians. On appeal, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that the evidence did not support the causation finding for the new meniscal tear or the replacement of the authorized physician, especially given Dr. Fiala's willingness to continue treatment. The Board emphasized the lack of sufficient expert medical testimony for causation and the need to follow proper procedures for changing authorized physicians.

Workers' CompensationMedical TreatmentCausationMeniscal TearWrist InjuryKnee InjuryTreating PhysicianMaximum Medical ImprovementDegenerative ConditionExpedited Hearing
References
6
Case No. 2021-06-1132
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2022

Eddie, Uncle v. Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee

At an expedited hearing on April 19, 2022, Mr. Eddie sought further medical care and temporary disability benefits for an accepted back injury, including the appointment of Dr. Narendra Singh as his authorized treating physician. The Court denied his requests because he already has an authorized treating physician, Dr. Malcolm Steele, willing to treat him, and Goodwill was accommodating his restrictions when he quit. The Court found Dr. Singh's opinion ambiguous and not sufficiently different from the authorized physicians' opinions to warrant a change. Mr. Eddie's request for temporary disability benefits was also denied as no physician took him completely off work for his work injury and Goodwill was accommodating his restrictions.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical Care Request DeniedTemporary Disability Benefits DeniedAuthorized Treating PhysicianPreexisting ConditionLumbar InjuryBack PainAggravation of InjuryForklift Accident
References
3
Case No. 23-0697
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

State of Texas Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas Texas Medical Board Texas Health and Human Services Commission And Ken Paxton, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Lazaro Loe, Individually and as Next Friend of Luna Loe, a Minor Mary Moe and Matthew Moe, Individually and as Next Friends of Maeve Moe, a Minor Nora Noe, Individually and as Next Friend of Nathan Noe, a Minor Sarah Soe and Steven Soe, Individually and as Next Friends of Samantha Soe, a Minor Gina Goe, Individually and as Next Friend of Grayson Goe, a Minor Pflag, Inc. Richard Ogden Roberts III, M.D. David L. Paul, M.D. Patrick W. O'malley, M.D. And American Association of Physicians for Human

The Supreme Court of Texas reversed and vacated a temporary injunction against Senate Bill 14, which prohibits certain medical treatments for minors related to gender transition. Parents of children with gender dysphoria, along with physicians and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, had challenged the law as unconstitutional, alleging infringements on parental rights, occupational freedom for physicians, and discrimination based on sex and transgender status. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish a probable right to relief, asserting that parental rights are not absolute and the Legislature has constitutional authority to regulate medicine, especially regarding novel treatments for new conditions. The Court also found no unconstitutional discrimination, stating the law treats males and females equally in its prohibitions and that "transgender status" is not a protected class under the Texas Constitution.

Parental RightsMedical RegulationGender DysphoriaConstitutional LawDue Course of LawEqual ProtectionTransgender RightsMinors' Medical TreatmentLegislative AuthorityTexas Supreme Court
References
62
Case No. 2023-08-8556
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2025

MILES, DEANDRE v. NIKE INC. FOOTWEAR

DeAndre Miles, an employee, filed a claim after injuring his back on March 11, 2023, due to a forklift malfunction. He sought a new authorized physician, temporary disability benefits, and payment of unauthorized medical bills. The employer, Nike Inc. Footwear, and its carrier, Old Republic Ins. Co., opposed these requests, asserting that Mr. Miles was not entitled to a new physician and had been released to full duty by his authorized treating physician, Dr. Sam Murrell. The Court denied Mr. Miles' requests for a new physician, temporary disability benefits, and payment of unauthorized medical bills, citing a lack of proof and the requirement to accept employer-provided medical benefits. However, the Court affirmed Mr. Miles' right to return to his authorized treating physician, Dr. Murrell, for any reasonable and necessary treatment related to his work injury. A status conference has been set for September 22, 2025.

Back InjuryForklift AccidentMedical Treatment DisputeTemporary Disability BenefitsUnauthorized Medical ExpensesExpedited Hearing OrderAuthorized PhysicianMaximum Medical ImprovementMotion to CompelEvidentiary Ruling
References
2
Case No. 2018-01-0388
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2019

Vanveldhuizen, John v. Crown Automotive Group, Inc.

John Vanveldhuizen, an employee, requested an expedited hearing against Crown Automotive Group, Inc. and FFVA Mutual Ins. Co. concerning the authorization of a third lumbar surgery recommended by his treating physician, Dr. Jay Jolley. Crown denied the surgery based on a utilization review physician's opinion, Dr. Richard Lutz, who deemed it not medically necessary. The Court, however, sided with the treating physician, Dr. Jolley, affording his opinion a presumption of medical necessity due to his long history of treating the employee and the lack of compelling evidence from Crown to rebut this presumption. Ultimately, the Court ordered Crown to authorize the recommended surgery.

Lumbar surgeryMicrodiskectomyFusion surgeryRadiculopathyDisk herniationUtilization reviewMedical necessityTreating physicianExpedited hearingWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
5
Case No. 2015-03-0285
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2016

Long, Joann v. Southeast Eye Specialists

This Expedited Hearing Order addresses Joann Long's request for medical and temporary disability benefits after a workplace fall. Ms. Long, employed by SouthEast Eye Specialists, sustained a severe hamstring injury. She initially received treatment from Dr. Hovis, the authorized treating physician, who did not recommend surgery. Ms. Long sought a second opinion and, dissatisfied with Dr. Hovis's care, pursued unauthorized surgery with Dr. Damon Petty. SouthEast Eye Specialists subsequently suspended her benefits, citing her non-compliance with the authorized physician. The Court found insufficient evidence to determine if Dr. Hovis's treatment was inappropriate, and thus, Ms. Long failed to justify seeking unauthorized medical care. Consequently, the Court denied her requests for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred with Dr. Petty and for temporary total disability benefits. Dr. Hovis is to remain the authorized treating physician, or SES must provide a new panel.

Workers' Compensation LawExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Total DisabilityUnauthorized Medical TreatmentAuthorized Treating PhysicianPanel of PhysiciansBurden of ProofConflicting Medical OpinionsHamstring Injury
References
5
Case No. 2017-06-0070
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2017

Baker, Tonya v. Electrolux

This interlocutory appeal addresses an employee's right to a second authorized treating physician after expressing dissatisfaction with her initial selection from a panel. The employer contended it fulfilled its statutory obligation by providing the first physician. While the trial court ordered the employer to provide a new panel, the Appeals Board reversed this decision. The Board found no evidence that the initial physician refused further treatment or that the employee attempted to continue care with him. Consequently, the employee was deemed to still have an authorized treating physician, negating the need for a new selection.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsTreating PhysicianPanel of PhysiciansEmployee RightsEmployer ObligationsStatutory InterpretationAppealLumbar StrainSciatica
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2007

Salvador-Pajaro v. Port Authority

This case involves a Port Authority police officer who sued the Port Authority for personal injuries, alleging an unsafe workplace in New Jersey. The Port Authority's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was initially denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the motion and dismissing the complaint. The court ruled that New York's Labor Law § 27-a, which was the basis for the General Municipal Law § 205-e claim, does not apply to the Port Authority as an Interstate Compact agency, particularly without concurring legislation from New Jersey. Additionally, New York Labor Law provisions concerning workplace safety do not apply to workplaces located outside of New York, even if both the injured worker and the employer are New York domiciliaries.

Interstate Compact AgencyWorkplace SafetyJurisdictionExtraterritorial ApplicationLabor LawGeneral Municipal LawSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryPort AuthorityEmployer-Employee Relations
References
5
Case No. 01-14-00767-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Shirley Lenoir, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shana Lenoir and Christopher McKnight , Individually and as Next Friend of Nayla McKnight v. U.T. Physicians

This is a health care liability appeal where Shirley Lenoir and Christopher McKnight, individually and as representatives of the Estate of Shana Lenoir and Nayla McKnight, challenge the trial court's decision to grant U.T. Physicians' plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. The appellants allege that U.T. Physicians' negligence in treating Shana Lenoir’s twin pregnancy, specifically the administration of a medically unnecessary and contraindicated progesterone injection by Nurse Matthews, proximately caused her death. U.T. Physicians claimed sovereign immunity as a governmental unit. Appellants argue that U.T. Physicians is a private non-profit corporation and an independent contractor, not entitled to sovereign immunity, and that a waiver of immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act was sufficiently pled due to the use of tangible physical property.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental UnitIndependent ContractorTexas Tort Claims ActHealth Care LiabilityMedical MalpracticeNegligenceProgesterone InjectionTwin PregnancyWrongful Death
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 6,447 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