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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Billy Overstreet v. TRW Commercial Steering Division

This concurring opinion by Judge William C. Koch, Jr. addresses the legal basis for prohibiting ex parte communications between an employer's counsel and an employee's treating physician in a Workers' Compensation Act claim. While the Court's main conclusion relies on an implied-in-law contract theory, Judge Koch advocates for a fiduciary duty stemming from the physician-patient relationship. He clarifies that physicians have a duty of non-disclosure, subject to statutory exceptions for workers' compensation reports, but these exceptions do not permit ex parte communications. The opinion asserts that employees retain their medical privacy unless explicitly altered by law.

Physician-patient privilegeConfidentialityEx parte communicationWorkers' CompensationFiduciary dutyImplied contractMedical records disclosureHIPAALegal ethicsPatient rights
References
34
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. ADJ9048259
Regular
Dec 30, 2015

Antonio Avila vs. Barrett Business Services, Inc., Corvel Insurance Company

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the judge's decision that the applicant must treat within the employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The Board found that while there were some informational deficiencies, they did not amount to a denial of medical treatment that would justify treating outside the MPN. Crucially, the applicant admitted he liked his MPN physician and only sought to change doctors based on his attorney's recommendation. Evidence showed the employer promptly provided medical treatment and confirmed the applicant's treating physician was within their MPN.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationMPNMedical Provider NetworkWCJHealth First Medical GroupDr. Eliasattorney's recommendationBBSI MPNCorvel Insurance Company
References
1
Case No. 2022-08-0077
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2024

Cervantes, Elisabeth v. Matthew Steven Pruitt

Elisabeth Cervantes sought to change her authorized treating physician after experiencing worsened pain following her release by Dr. Parsioon, the employer-selected doctor. She requested to have Dr. John Dockery, an unauthorized physician, become her new authorized treater, citing his findings that her symptoms were work-related. The Court denied Ms. Cervantes's request, concluding she failed to meet the burden for changing physicians, as Dr. Parsioon had not declined treatment and no new panel was offered. However, the Court affirmed that Ms. Cervantes's medical benefits were not terminated, allowing her to return to Dr. Parsioon for any reasonable and necessary treatment related to her work injury.

Workers' CompensationMedical TreatmentPhysician SelectionExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsAuthorized Treating PhysicianMaximum Medical ImprovementPermanent ImpairmentCausationHip Injury
References
3
Case No. 2015-01-0201
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2015

Amos, Karen v. Chattanooga Goodwill Industries, Inc.

Karen Amos, an employee, sought to change her authorized treating physician or obtain a second opinion, and claim temporary disability benefits, after sustaining a back injury at Chattanooga Goodwill Industries, Inc. She expressed dissatisfaction with Dr. Madigan's care, who released her without restrictions, but provided no countervailing medical evidence to support her request. Goodwill opposed her requests, arguing she selected a physician from a valid panel and disputing her entitlement to benefits. The Court denied both her requests, finding no statutory authority for changing physicians or obtaining a second opinion under the presented circumstances. Additionally, her claim for temporary total disability benefits was denied due to the absence of medical expert opinion establishing a causal link between her injury and her inability to work.

Workers' CompensationMedical Treatment DisputeTemporary Total DisabilityPhysician ChoiceSecond Medical OpinionExpedited HearingBack InjuryEmployee TerminationTennessee LawStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. 05-17-01457-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2019

Charles Chang, M.D. v. Ashley Denny

Dr. Charles Chang performed brain surgery on Ashley Denny in 2006, leaving a cotton ball in her brain, which was discovered during a second surgery in 2011. Denny filed a medical liability claim against Dr. Chang in 2013, approximately seven years after the initial surgery and more than two years after discovering the foreign object. The trial court initially dismissed the claims as time-barred but later granted a new trial, where a jury found Dr. Chang negligent and Denny diligent in pursuing her claim. Dr. Chang appealed, challenging the denial of his motion for Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto (JNOV) on Denny's open courts defense. The dissenting opinion argues that Denny failed to exercise due diligence as a matter of law, given the 25-month delay in filing suit after discovery, and that her explanations (difficulty helping her lawyer and finding an expert) are insufficient to overcome the statute of limitations. The dissent concludes that the law should be applied neutrally, preventing recovery against Dr. Chang and suggesting Denny's recourse should be against her attorney.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsOpen Courts DoctrineDue DiligenceForeign ObjectSurgical ErrorJury VerdictJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Practice
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 4,333 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