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. 07-02-0172-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2004

Lucille W. Bean v. Dr. Deena Buford and Dr. Julie George, Exxon Mobile Corporation, Exxon Corporation and Exxon Chemicals Americas

Lucille W. Bean appealed a summary judgment in favor of Deena Buford, M.D., Julie George, M.D., Exxon Mobil Corporation, Exxon Corporation, and Exxon Chemicals Americas. Bean, a former Exxon employee, had filed a worker's compensation claim and EEOC complaints, leading to her termination. She alleged breach of physician-patient confidentiality, intentional misrepresentation regarding medical information confidentiality, and retaliation for her complaints. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, finding Bean failed to demonstrate harm from alleged disclosures or successfully challenge all grounds for summary judgment, including her inability to perform job functions, thus not disproving the validity of the trial court's decision.

DiscriminationRetaliationWorker's Compensation ClaimSummary JudgmentPhysician-Patient ConfidentialityIntentional MisrepresentationAppellate ReviewEmployment TerminationMedical Information DisclosureTexas Law
References
8
Case No. ADJ6668361
Regular
Jul 09, 2012

DAVID CABRERA vs. MITCHELL GEIGER, CITY OF RIVERSIDE

Curtis W. Montgomery Chiropractic Corporation's Petition for Removal was dismissed because they failed to demonstrate prejudice from an order continuing a mandatory settlement conference. Montgomery also failed to serve the applicant and, critically, has not filed a lien in the case. Without a filed lien, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction over Montgomery's claim for reimbursement. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

Petition for RemovalCurtis W. Montgomery Chiropractic CorporationLabor Code section 5402(c)reimbursement claimWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10850lien filingjurisdiction
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Petroleum Exploration & Operating Corp. v. J. W. McCutchen Drilling Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Petroleum Exploration and Operating Corporation (Petro) against a summary judgment favoring J. W. McCutchen Drilling Company (McCutchen) in a suit on an indemnity agreement. The agreement stipulated McCutchen would indemnify Petro against claims by McCutchen's employees resulting from McCutchen's negligence. A McCutchen employee, W. R. Hardcastle, sued Petro for injuries and received workers' compensation benefits from McCutchen's carrier, prompting Petro's cross-claim for indemnity and contribution. The central legal question involved whether the indemnity clause circumvented the Workers' Compensation Act's prohibition on third-party recovery from employers. The court found the indemnity agreement valid under the Act and reversed the summary judgment, concluding McCutchen failed to prove its non-negligence as a matter of law.

Indemnity AgreementOil Drilling ContractSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ActEmployer LiabilityContractual IndemnityNegligenceThird Party LiabilityReversed and RemandedTexas Law
References
1
Case No. 03-01-00084-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2002

John W. Berkel and John W. Berkel, P.C./Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association/John W. Berkel and John W. Berkel, P.C.

This case involves cross-appeals from a judgment by the District Court of Travis County. John W. Berkel and John W. Berkel, P.C. (Berkel) sued the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA) and a receiver, seeking to enforce a contract for $6,306, which represented a previously approved "covered claim" for legal services. The trial court awarded Berkel the $6,306 but denied claims for statutory attorney's fees, prejudgment, and postjudgment interest. TPCIGA appealed the $6,306 award, arguing the claim was not a covered claim, but the appellate court affirmed this part, holding the Receiver's prior determination was binding. Berkel appealed the denial of attorney's fees and interest, and the appellate court reversed and remanded this part for further proceedings.

Insurance LawReceivershipImpaired InsurerCovered ClaimsStatutory InterpretationAttorney's FeesPrejudgment InterestPostjudgment InterestSummary JudgmentContract Enforcement
References
9
Case No. ADJ6610181
Regular
Jul 09, 2012

ROGER LUTHER vs. CITY OF RIVERSIDE

Curtis W. Montgomery Chiropractic Corporation filed a Petition for Removal challenging an order continuing a case to a mandatory settlement conference. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because Montgomery failed to demonstrate prejudice, did not serve the applicant, and importantly, has not filed a lien to invoke the Board's jurisdiction over his reimbursement claim. Consequently, his petition for removal is dismissed, and sanctions are not addressed.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCurtis W. Montgomery Chiropractic CorporationLabor Code section 5402(c)mandatory settlement conferencereimbursement claimWCAB Rule 10843significant prejudiceirreparable harmWCAB Rule 10850
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00600
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2020

Matter of Sean CJ Ivan W. (Danica W.)

This case concerns an appeal by the mother, Danica W., from an order terminating her parental rights to her child, Noel Sean CJ Ivan W. The Family Court, Queens County, found that the mother permanently neglected the child and transferred guardianship and custody to Little Flower Children and Family Services of New York and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for adoption. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that the petitioner demonstrated diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship. However, the mother failed to adequately plan for the child's future despite these efforts. The appellate court also agreed that terminating parental rights and freeing the child for adoption was in the child's best interests, rejecting a suspended judgment.

Parental RightsPermanent NeglectChild WelfareAdoptionFamily LawAppellate DivisionGuardianshipDiligent EffortsBest Interests of ChildSocial Services Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ashley W.

The children Ashley W and Wrenggor W, natives of Haiti, appealed a Family Court, Nassau County order denying their guardianship petition by their paternal aunt, Verdele F, and their motion for special immigrant juvenile status. The Family Court's denial without a hearing was based on the uncle's past conviction. The appellate court dismissed Verdele F.'s appeal but reversed the order concerning Ashley W and Wrenggor W. The case was remitted for a hearing and new determination, as the uncle's criminal record was deemed not an automatic bar.

GuardianshipSpecial Immigrant Juvenile StatusFamily Court ActChild WelfareParental AbuseChild NeglectAbandonmentBest Interests of the ChildCriminal RecordAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. 14-09-00105-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2009

in Re Investment Capital Corporation and Service Corporation International

Relators Investment Capital Corporation (ICC) and Service Corporation International (SCI) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Kathleen Stone of Probate Court No. 1 of Harris County to grant leave to designate SCI Funeral & Cemetary Purchasing Cooperative, Inc. as a responsible third party in a wrongful death suit. The underlying suit was initiated by the widow of Harold Israel, who suffered fatal injuries after falling in a parking garage. The trial court denied the relators' motion to designate SCI Funeral as a responsible third party. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus, concluding that the relators had an adequate remedy at law and that the case did not present the extraordinary circumstances necessary to justify mandamus relief, distinguishing it from precedent such as In re Arthur Andersen.

Mandamus ReliefResponsible Third Party DesignationTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate RemedyWrongful Death SuitNegligence ClaimsGross NegligencePremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ActAbuse of Discretion
References
10
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 02801
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2017

Matter of Zachariah W. v. Dominique W.

The Administration for Children's Services (ACS) filed a child neglect petition against Dominique W. four days after she gave birth to Zachariah W. The petition alleged neglect after hospital personnel discovered the mother's limited income and housing situation, leading to the child's emergency removal without providing the mother with housing information or supplies. The Family Court, Kings County, found the mother neglected the child. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Family Court's order, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The appellate court concluded that ACS failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother did not provide adequate care, food, clothing, and shelter, or that there was imminent danger of impairment to the child, which is a prerequisite for a neglect finding.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActAppellate DivisionBurden of ProofPreponderance of EvidenceImminent DangerParental CareChild WelfareEmergency RemovalHousing Assistance
References
7
Case No. 03-10-00673-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2012

Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners, Glenn Parker, Executive Director, and Texas Chiropractic Association v. Texas Medical Association, Texas Medical Board, and the State of Texas

This case concerns an appeal by the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners (TBCE) and the Texas Chiropractic Association (TCA) challenging a district court's judgment. The district court invalidated portions of TBCE's administrative rule defining the scope of chiropractic practice, specifically regarding manipulation under anesthesia (MUA), needle electromyography (needle EMG), and certain diagnostic activities. The Court of Appeals affirmed the invalidation of rules permitting needle EMG and MUA, finding them to be "incisive" and "surgical" procedures respectively, and thus exceeding the statutory scope of chiropractic. However, the appellate court reversed the invalidation of rules allowing chiropractors to make certain diagnoses concerning the biomechanical condition of the spine or musculoskeletal system and subluxation complex, concluding these were within the statutory scope. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding alternative constitutional challenges.

Chiropractic regulationMedical scope of practiceAdministrative rulesStatutory interpretationNeedle EMGManipulation Under AnesthesiaChiropractic diagnosisTexas lawHealth professional licensingJudicial review
References
98
Showing 1-10 of 4,741 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