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. 14-17-00699-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2018

Bryon Dean Jordan v. Texas Children's Hospital

Bryon Dean Jordan, an appellant, sued Texas Children's Hospital after sustaining injuries from a slip and fall on a wooden ramp on the hospital's premises, allegedly due to slippery algae. Jordan, a delivery driver, claimed the hospital failed to warn of or remedy the unreasonably dangerous condition. The hospital sought summary judgment, arguing the condition was open and obvious or known to Jordan, thereby negating its duty under premises liability law. The trial court granted summary judgment for the hospital, which the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court found that the hospital had successfully demonstrated the condition was open and obvious, and Jordan failed to provide sufficient controverting evidence to raise a material fact issue.

premises liabilityslip and fallsummary judgment reviewopen and obvious dangerlandowner dutyinvitee statusalgae hazardappellate affirmationnegligence claimHouston Courts
References
18
Case No. 14-11-00034-CV; 14-11-00127-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Nath v. Texas Children's Hospital

This case consolidates two appeals filed by Rahul K. Nath, M.D., challenging substantial attorney's fees awarded as sanctions to Texas Children's Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine. Nath argued the sanctions were improperly levied against him, untimely, and violated constitutional rights. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding ample evidence that Nath was personally involved in prosecuting groundless and bad-faith claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and declaratory judgment. The court noted Nath's improper use of discovery to leverage a financial settlement based on unproven allegations about a deceased doctor's health.

SanctionsAttorney's FeesAppealsCivil ProcedureDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDeclaratory JudgmentJudicial DiscretionBad Faith LitigationGroundless Claims
References
46
Case No. E1999-00169-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2000

Timothy P. Hancock v. The Chattanooga- Hamilton Cty Hospital Authority , d/b/a T.C. Thompson Children's Hospital

This medical malpractice case concerns the retrospective application of the Supreme Court's decision in Jordan v. Baptist Three Rivers Hospital, which allowed for loss of consortium damages in wrongful death cases. The plaintiffs, Timothy P. Hancock and Tina M. Hancock, sought to amend their complaint to include such damages for the death of their daughter, Breanna Hancock. The trial court dismissed the amendment, ruling that the Jordan decision could not be applied retrospectively because the cause of action accrued before Jordan was decided. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing that a change in judicial construction of a statute affecting vested rights is generally not applied retrospectively unless expressly stated. The court found that Jordan altered vested rights regarding recoverable damages, thus preventing its retrospective application to the instant case.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathLoss of ConsortiumRetroactive ApplicationJudicial PrecedentStatutory ConstructionVested RightsAppellate ReviewTennessee LawNegligence Claims
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huntington Hospital v. Huntington Hospital Nurses' Ass'n

Huntington Hospital initiated an action under the Federal Arbitration Act to partially vacate an arbitration award, while the Huntington Hospital Nurses’ Association cross-petitioned to confirm it. The dispute originated from the Hospital unilaterally granting two nurses, Betty Evans and Lynn Meyer, longevity pay credits exceeding the ten-year cap stipulated in their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The arbitrator found the Hospital violated the CBA's sections on pay and exclusive bargaining rights. The arbitrator mandated the Hospital roll back excess credits and recover overpayments. The District Court denied the Hospital's petition, dismissing arguments regarding public policy, manifest disregard for law, and lack of award finality, ultimately confirming the arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawFederal Arbitration ActWage DisputesLongevity PayUnion RightsPublic Policy ExceptionManifest Disregard of LawContract Interpretation
References
22
Case No. 03-02-00429-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2003

Hospitals and Hospital Systems v. Continental Casualty Company

Hospitals and Hospital Systems appealed a declaratory judgment favoring Continental Casualty Company and other insurers, concerning the application of a one-year statute of limitations (rule 133.305(a)) for workers' compensation medical claims. The claims arose after the 1992 Acute Care Hospital Fee Guideline was invalidated. Hospitals argued the limitations period should be tolled due to prior litigation challenging the guideline and that the Commission waived the rule through a settlement agreement. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, Austin, found no basis for tolling, noting hospitals were not prevented from filing claims earlier. It also ruled that the Commission's executive director lacked authority to waive the rule, and that any waiver could not revive time-barred claims. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the applicability of rule 133.305(a) and barring the Hospitals' claims.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawDeclaratory JudgmentStatute of LimitationsTollingWaiverTexas Court of AppealsFee GuidelinesMedical Dispute ResolutionAgency Rules
References
10
Case No. 22-0558
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2023

Scott & White Memorial Hospital D/B/A Baylor Scott & White McLane Children's Medical Center A/K/A Baylor Scott & White Health v. Dawn M. Thompson, R.N.

Dawn Thompson, a registered nurse, was terminated by Scott & White Memorial Hospital after reporting child abuse concerns to Child Protective Services (CPS). The hospital stated the termination was due to Thompson's third violation of their personal-conduct policy, specifically disclosing protected health information to a school nurse without authorization. Thompson sued, alleging retaliation in violation of Section 261.110(b) of the Texas Family Code, which protects professionals who report child abuse. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed that this statute requires a "but-for" causation standard, meaning the adverse action would not have occurred without the protected conduct. The Court found that Scott & White conclusively proved that Thompson would have been terminated for the HIPAA violation regardless of her CPS report, thereby negating the causation element of her claim. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and reinstated the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Scott & White.

Texas Family CodeWhistleblower ActEmployment TerminationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentBut-For CausationHIPAA ViolationChild Abuse ReportProtected ConductNurse Employment
References
14
Case No. NO. 09-04-368 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2005

Silsbee Hospital, Inc. D/B/A Columbia Silsbee Doctors Hospital v. Lonny George

Lonny George, an employee of Silsbee Hospital, Inc., a nonsubscriber to workers' compensation, sustained injuries and sued the hospital. He had signed a waiver agreement related to an employee benefit plan, which the hospital contended released them from liability for personal injuries. The Court of Appeals examined the waiver agreement's language, applying contract construction rules and the express negligence doctrine, and found it only applied to the parent company, Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corporation, not the subsidiary Hospital, as George's injuries arose from employment with the Hospital. The court also rejected the Hospital's affirmative defenses of ratification, release, waiver, and estoppel. However, the appellate court determined there was harmful error in jury selection due to the trial court's failure to strike two unequivocally biased veniremembers. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

NonsubscriberWorkers' Compensation WaiverEmployee InjuryExpress Negligence RuleJury BiasAppellate ReversalRemand for New TrialContract InterpretationAffirmative DefensesTexas Law
References
38
Case No. 2-05-303-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2006

Sally Downs v. Triad-Denton Hospital, L.P. D/B/A Denton Community Hospital

Sally Downs, a licensed vocational nurse employed by Advantage Nursing Services, Inc., sustained injuries after slipping and falling on a wet floor at Triad-Denton Hospital, where she was temporarily assigned. Downs received workers' compensation benefits through her employer's policy. She subsequently sued the Hospital for her injuries. The Hospital moved for summary judgment, asserting the affirmative defense of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision, arguing Downs was a borrowed servant. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Hospital. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case, holding that the trial court erred because the Hospital failed to specially plead the affirmative defense as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 94, and Downs had properly objected to this omission.

Workers' CompensationBorrowed Servant DoctrineSummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseExclusive RemedyTexas Labor CodeAppellate ProcedureProcedural ErrorPersonal InjuryPremises Liability
References
2
Case No. 03-21-00242-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2022

Vista Medical Center Hospital, Surgery Specialty Hospital of America, Southeast Houston and Vista Hospital of Dallas v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company

This appeal stems from a dispute over workers' compensation medical benefits reimbursement between multiple hospitals (Vista Parties) and numerous insurance carriers (Carriers) in Texas. The core issue revolves around the application of a "stop-loss exception" under Former Rule 134.401, designed for unusually costly or lengthy hospital stays, which the Vista Parties sought for 542 injured workers. After the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) largely denied additional reimbursement, the district court affirmed SOAH's order. The Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the district court's judgment, rejecting the Vista Parties' arguments that the SOAH order was arbitrary and capricious or lacked substantial evidence. The court found that SOAH properly conducted a case-by-case inquiry into whether services were "unusually costly and unusually extensive" and did not err in its application of the rule or in its findings.

Workers' CompensationMedical ReimbursementStop-Loss ExceptionAdministrative LawAppellate CourtTexas Court of AppealsSubstantial Evidence ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousFee GuidelinesHospital Reimbursement
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

League of Voluntary Hospitals & Homes v. Local 1199, Drug, Hospital & Health Care Workers Union

The court addresses an application for a preliminary injunction against Local 1199, a union planning a three-day strike. The League of Voluntary Hospitals and Homes of N. Y. sought the injunction following a previous temporary restraining order concerning a one-day strike. The union argued that each planned strike required a new legal proceeding, but the court deemed the strikes "episodic and organically connected." Citing concerns about blocked ingress/egress to hospitals and the union president's threats to "shut down" facilities, the judge found a preliminary injunction necessary under Labor Law § 807 to protect public health and safety. The injunction restrains the union from unlawfully interfering with hospital operations, blocking access, and picketing within certain distances of hospital entrances and emergency rooms.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionStrike ActionUnion ActivityHospital AccessPicketing RegulationsCollective BargainingCivil Disobedience ThreatPublic Health and SafetyIngress Egress Interference
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 2,480 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