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. 13-15-00024-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. 25 NY3d 907
Regular Panel Decision
2015-XX-XX

Government Employees Insurance v. Avanguard Medical Group, PLLC

This case addresses whether no-fault insurance carriers are obligated to pay facility fees to New York State-accredited office-based surgery (OBS) centers for the use of their premises and support services. The court concluded that neither existing statutes nor regulations mandate such payments. Plaintiffs, a group of GEICO insurers, successfully sought a declaratory judgment that they are not legally required to reimburse Avanguard Medical Group, PLLC, for OBS facility fees, totaling over $1.3 million. The decision affirmed the Appellate Division's ruling, emphasizing that OBS facility fees are not explicitly covered by statute or fee schedules, nor do they fall under reimbursable "professional health services" as per 11 NYCRR 68.5. The court highlighted the distinct regulatory frameworks for OBS centers compared to hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers, declining to mandate policy changes best left to the legislature.

No-Fault InsuranceOffice-Based Surgery (OBS)Facility FeesInsurance LawBasic Economic LossFee SchedulesWorkers' Compensation BoardDepartment of Financial ServicesStatutory InterpretationRegulatory Framework
References
16
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. 14-08-00399-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2009

Orville Losier and Wife Joelle Losier v. Shivarajpur K. Ravi, M.D., and Ambika Medical Group, P.A.

Appellants Orville and Joelle Losier appealed a unanimous jury verdict in favor of appellees Shivarajpur K. Ravi, M.D., and Ambika Medical Group, P.A., in a medical malpractice case. The Losiers claimed the trial court erred by refusing a res ipsa loquitur jury instruction and by denying a motion for new trial based on juror misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that res ipsa loquitur did not apply as the IDET procedure and catheter retention were not matters of common lay knowledge requiring expert testimony. Additionally, the court found insufficient evidence to prove probable injury from the alleged juror misconduct, despite acknowledging impropriety in the contact. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Medical malpracticeRes ipsa loquiturJuror misconductIDET procedureCatheter retentionNegligenceTexas civil procedureAppellate reviewExpert witnessTrial court discretion
References
21
Case No. 03-19-00484-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2021

Dr. Lawrence Broder, M.D. and Round Rock Medical Aesthetics & Urgent Care PLLC D/B/A Beleza Medspa v. Nexstar Broadcast Group, Inc. KXAN-TV And Jody Barr

This case involves an appeal by Dr. Lawrence Broder, M.D. and Round Rock Medical Aesthetics & Urgent Care PLLC d/b/a Beleza Medspa against Nexstar Broadcast Group, Inc., KXAN-TV, and Jody Barr. The appellants sued for defamation, business disparagement, and tortious interference after KXAN-TV aired a news report by Jody Barr regarding complaints filed against Dr. Broder with the Texas Medical Board (TMB) and the death of a patient following plastic surgery. The appellees filed a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), which the trial court granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding that the TCPA applied, the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case for their claims, and the attorney's fee award to the appellees was reasonable. The court specifically noted that the news report was substantially true and concerned matters of public interest, thus protected under free speech.

DefamationBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens Participation ActTCPAFree SpeechMedical MalpracticeTexas Medical BoardTMBMedia Privilege
References
30
Case No. 2024-50-2711
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2026

Lusk v. Portopiccolo Group LLC, dba The Portopiccolo Group

This interlocutory appeal concerns an employer's denial of medical treatment for an employee's work-related injuries. Employee Cheryl Lusk, injured by a resident at Portopiccolo Group, LLC, was recommended for cervical spine surgery by her authorized treating physician, Dr. John Burleson. The employer denied the surgery based on a utilization review report, which was upheld by the Bureau's Medical Director. The trial court, however, ordered the employer to provide the surgery, relying on the presumption of medical necessity for treatment recommended by an authorized physician. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the employer failed to rebut this presumption, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationMedical Treatment DenialUtilization ReviewSurgical AuthorizationPresumption of Medical NecessityEmployer AppealCervical Spine InjuryACDF SurgeryAuthorized Treating PhysicianBurden of Proof
References
8
Case No. ADJ3871980 (SBR 0332495) ADJ1578450 (SBR 0333829) ADJ7125261
Regular
Nov 05, 2010

ANITA BAKER vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, PSI, Adjusted and Administered By KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP

This case involves Anita Baker's workers' compensation claim against Southern California Permanente Medical Group. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the judge's decision. The primary dispute centered on the calculation of diminished future earning capacity, with the applicant arguing for a calculation based on actual lost earnings and the defendant relying on statutory guidelines and expert testimony. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found in favor of the applicant regarding the calculation of permanent disability, incorporating aspects of both expert opinions and considering the applicant's specific circumstances.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardSouthern California Permanente Medical GroupKaiser Permanente Medical GroupPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeOgilvie v. City and County of San Franciscodiminished future earning capacityFindings and Awardcontinuous traumabilateral upper extremities
References
1
Case No. ADJ10477247
Regular
Oct 31, 2017

ESTELA WALLE vs. THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP

Here's a summary of the two cases for a lawyer, in max four sentences each: **Case 1: Estela Walle vs. The Permanente Medical Group (ADJ10477247)** The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the applicant did not sustain a back injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The Board gave significant weight to the WCJ's credibility determination, finding no substantial evidence to warrant overturning it. Therefore, the applicant was awarded nothing on her claim. **Case 2: Estela Walle vs. The Permanente Medical Group (ADJ8620015, ADJ9183471)** The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's award for psychiatric injury and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board found the analysis of whether the injury was predominantly caused by employment events, and specifically by lawful, good faith personnel actions, to be inadequate under *Rolda*. Further development of the record is required to clarify the events of May 21, 2012, and to determine the precise causal contribution of employment-related factors versus good faith personnel actions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderApplicantInjury Arising Out of and In the Course of EmploymentAOE/COEBack InjuryWCJCredibility DeterminationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
1
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02801 [204 AD3d 1016]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2022

Matter of Panos v. Mid Hudson Med. Group, P.C.

Spyros Panos was terminated from Mid-Hudson Medical Group (MHMG) for submitting fraudulent medical bills and subsequently pleaded guilty to healthcare fraud. Panos initiated an action for breach of contract against MHMG, which proceeded to arbitration. The arbitrator applied the faithless servant doctrine and granted MHMG's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Panos's claims. Panos then sought to vacate the arbitration award in the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, but the court denied his petition and dismissed the proceeding. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Panos failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law.

Arbitration awardVacaturFaithless servant doctrineBreach of contractSummary judgmentHealth care fraudAppellate reviewJudicial reviewEmployment agreementFiduciary duty
References
18
Case No. 03-14-00774-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2015

Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, and Nicole Oria, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director// Ellen Jefferson, D.V.M. v. Ellen Jefferson, D.V.M.// Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, and Nicole Oria, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director

This Amicus Curiae Brief is filed on behalf of Best Friends Animal Society, a national nonprofit animal welfare organization. It opposes the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners' (the 'Board') enforcement actions against Ellen Jefferson, D.V.M., alleging these actions illegally expand the Board's jurisdiction beyond statutory limits and usurp animal welfare responsibilities delegated to the Texas Board of Health and municipalities. The brief argues the Board's actions violate both unambiguous statutory language and the Board's own rules, attempting to regulate animal welfare instead of merely licensing veterinarians. Best Friends contends that if unchecked, the Board's overreach will debilitate no-kill shelters and lead to an exponential increase in animal euthanasia in Texas.

Veterinary Licensing ActAnimal WelfareTexas Board of Veterinary Medical ExaminersJurisdiction DisputeNo-Kill SheltersRegulatory OverreachStatutory InterpretationAmicus CuriaeProperty RightsTexas Occupations Code
References
59
Showing 1-10 of 40,327 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