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. 13-99-275-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2000

Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd., D/B/A Columbia Bayview Psychiatric Center v. Rayburn, William H.

William H. Rayburn, a 58-year-old former director of maintenance, sued his employer, Bay Area Healthcare Group, for age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) following his termination. A jury found in favor of Rayburn, awarding back pay, compensatory damages, and exemplary damages. Bay Area appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for liability and damages, and also arguing for a new trial based on a change in law from Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n. The Court of Appeals affirmed the awards for compensatory damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, but modified the back pay award, reducing it from $83,000 to $69,925.35. The court overruled Bay Area's remaining issues, including the request for a new trial based on Kolstad.

Age DiscriminationWrongful TerminationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTCHRABack PayCompensatory DamagesExemplary DamagesMitigation of DamagesEvidentiary SufficiencyPretext
References
48
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. 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. 13-15-00024-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2015

Maria Zamarripa, as Temporary Guardian of the Estates of R. F. R. and R. J. R., Minors, and Olga Flores, as Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Yolanda Iris Flores v. Bay Area Health Care Group, Ltd. D/B/A Corpus Christi Medical Center, Hidalgo County EMS, and Hidalgo County Emergency Medical Service Foundation

This case involves an appeal by Maria Zamarripa and Olga Flores (Appellants) against Bay Area Health Care Group, Hidalgo County EMS, and Hidalgo County Emergency Medical Service Foundation (Appellees). The Appellants are challenging the trial court's orders that granted the Appellees' motions to dismiss. The core of the appeal centers on the qualifications of Nurse Spears as an expert witness and the sufficiency of expert reports regarding the standard of care, its breach, and causation in a medical malpractice claim involving Yolanda Iris Flores's injuries and death from placenta accreta and pre-term labor. Appellants argue that Nurse Spears is qualified, the expert reports adequately connect CCMC's alleged breach of care to the injuries, and alternatively, they are entitled to amend the reports. They pray for the reversal of the trial court's dismissal orders and a remand for further proceedings.

Medical MalpracticePlacenta AccretaPre-term LaborMedical NegligenceStandard of CareCausationExpert Witness QualificationsHospital LiabilityEmergency Medical Services (EMS)Wrongful Death
References
16
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hawkins v. Center for Spinal Surgery

Demica Hawkins, a Black former Accounts Payable Coordinator, sued her employer, The Center for Spinal Surgery (CSS), alleging race discrimination, retaliation, and FMLA interference. The lawsuit stemmed from denied pay raises, disciplinary actions, and ultimately her termination while on pregnancy leave, which Hawkins claims was discriminatory and retaliatory. CSS filed a renewed motion for summary judgment, and Hawkins filed a partial motion for summary judgment. The court granted in part and denied in part CSS's motion, dismissing Hawkins' pregnancy discrimination and certain retaliation claims. However, Hawkins' retaliatory discharge and FMLA interference claims related to her 2013 termination will proceed to trial due to genuine disputes of material fact regarding CSS's motivations.

Race DiscriminationRetaliationFMLA InterferenceSummary JudgmentEmployment LawTitle VIIPregnancy Discrimination ActMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkHonest Belief RulePretext
References
64
Case No. 03A01-9804-CH-00120
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 1999

Cleveland Surgery Center v. Bradley Co. Hospital

Two private health care providers, Cleveland Surgery Center and Ocoee Physical Therapy, Inc., sought a declaratory judgment against Bradley County Memorial Hospital and its partners, alleging ultra vires acts and violations of the Tennessee Constitution. The providers challenged the hospital's business ventures with private entities, specifically the Ocoee Health Alliance. The trial court found the hospital had exceeded its authority by lending the county's credit and engaging in unconstitutional business dealings. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding the specific business ventures, concluding that the hospital acted as an agent of Bradley County and its partnerships with the private Alliance violated Article II, § 29 of the Tennessee Constitution. The appellate court modified the permanent injunction, narrowing its scope to prohibit transactions with private businesses that obligate County Funds without a public referendum.

Hospital AuthorityUltra Vires ActsConstitutional LawPublic-Private PartnershipsDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctionCounty LiabilityTaxation PowerReferendumHealthcare Law
References
24
Case No. 01-12-00216-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2014

Hand & Wrist Center of Houston, P.A. and SCA Houston Hospital for Specialized Surgery L.P. v. Maintenance Supply Headquarters, LP

Appellants Hand & Wrist Center, P.A. and SCA Houston Hospital for Specialized Surgery, L.P. appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Maintenance Supply Headquarters, L.P., concerning a breach of contract claim. The dispute arose from a "Letter of Guarantee" signed by Maintenance Supply for medical services provided to an injured employee, Daniel Contreras, whose workers' compensation claim was denied. Maintenance Supply argued estoppel and the applicability of the Labor Code's exclusive remedies provision. The Court of Appeals found the estoppel defense inapplicable and, crucially, ruled that Labor Code section 408.001(a)'s exclusive remedies provision applies only to employees and their beneficiaries, not to health care providers. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Breach of contractSummary judgmentWorkers' compensationExclusive remedyHealth care providersStatutory interpretationTexas Labor CodeEstoppelLetter of GuaranteeAppellate review
References
10
Case No. LAO 0811779, LAO 0811780
Regular
Mar 06, 2008

ELENA BLANKEVOORT vs. HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, S&B SURGERY CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a trial judge's order disallowing a lien claim from S&B Surgery Center. The WCAB found that while S&B Surgery Center did have a required "surgical clinic" license, it failed to prove compliance with fictitious business name filing requirements. However, the WCAB returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings, allowing S&B Surgery Center an opportunity to correct this procedural defect to recover on its lien.

Fictitious business nameLien claimantSurgical clinic licenseBusiness and Professions Code section 17910Medical BoardDepartment of Health ServicesBurden of proofReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOutpatient setting
References
12
Case No. 08-18-00011-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2019

Julio A. Hernandez and Rocio Martinez v. Enes M. Kanlic, M.D. El Paso County Hospital District D/B/A University Medical Center And Texas Tech Health Sciences Center

Julio Hernandez was rendered paraplegic after pelvic surgery at University Medical Center (UMC) by Dr. Enes M. Kanlic, an employee of Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC). Hernandez and Rocio Martinez sued Dr. Kanlic and UMC for medical malpractice. The case involved complex interactions between the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA), its election-of-remedies provision, pre-suit notice requirements, and the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA) with its expert report mandate. UMC was dismissed for lack of an expert report. Dr. Kanlic was dismissed, and TTUHSC was substituted as the defendant under TTCA's election-of-remedies, but TTUHSC was also dismissed due to lack of pre-suit notice. Hernandez appealed, raising issues related to the "borrowed servant" doctrine and challenging the constitutionality of TTCA's provisions under the Open Courts Clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissals, concluding that Hernandez failed to overcome the legislative hurdles.

Medical MalpracticeTexas Tort Claims ActTexas Medical Liability ActGovernmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityElection of RemediesPre-Suit NoticeExpert ReportBorrowed Servant DoctrineVicarious Liability
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 3,538 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