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. 01-03-00924-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2005

Mary Williams, D.D.S. and Russell Williams, D.D.S. v. L.M.S.C., Inc., D/B/A the Dental Solution

Mary Williams, D.D.S. and Russell Williams, D.D.S. appealed a judgment in favor of L.M.S.C., Inc., d/b/a The Dental Solution (TDS), stemming from a breach of contract dispute. TDS, a dental placement service, sued the Williams for an unpaid permanent placement fee after Diana Flanagan, whom TDS had previously placed temporarily as a dental hygienist, was hired by the Williams as a full-time dentist. The appellants challenged the jury's findings, arguing the contract did not cover dentists, lacked new consideration for modifications, and missed essential terms. The First District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the placement agreement, as modified by subsequent fee schedules, applied to the placement of dentists and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that the Williamses breached the contract by failing to pay the permanent placement fee. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees.

Breach of ContractPlacement AgreementDental IndustryPermanent Placement FeeContract ModificationConsiderationMeeting of the MindsLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesPrejudgment Interest
References
35
Case No. 07-06-0379-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2007

Dawn Gayken, D.D.S. v. Ann D. Ewton, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of Merle Clement Ewton, D.D.S.

Dawn Gayken, D.D.S. (appellant) appealed a trial court's order. The appellant's counsel informed the court that Dawn Gayken had filed a voluntary petition as debtor under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Consequently, any further action in this appeal is automatically stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362. For administrative purposes, the appeal is removed from the docket of this court and abated. The appeal will be reinstated upon a proper motion showing that the stay has been lifted or that the court may otherwise proceed with the disposition of the cause.

BankruptcyAutomatic StayAbatementAppellate ProcedureVoluntary PetitionDebtorStay LiftedJurisdictionTexas Court of AppealsCivil Procedure
References
1
Case No. 12-14-00256-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2015

Troy W. Simmons, D.D.S., P.C. and Troy W. Simmons, D.D.S. v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission

This case concerns an appeal by Troy W. Simmons, D.D.S., P.C., and Troy W. Simmons, D.D.S. (Simmons) against the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (THHSC). Simmons appealed the trial court's decision to grant THHSC's plea to the jurisdiction, which dismissed Simmons's suit for declaratory judgment. The dispute originated from a Medicaid fraud investigation by THHSC, leading to a payment hold and a final notice of overpayment against Simmons. Simmons's subsequent declaratory judgment suit, alleging ultra vires actions and constitutional violations, was dismissed on grounds of sovereign immunity. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Simmons failed to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity by suing the state agency directly instead of an official, and that the Declaratory Judgment Act did not confer jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionDeclaratory Judgment ActUltra ViresMedicaid FraudAdministrative RemediesGovernmental ImmunityTexas LawAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
18
Case No. 03-03-00079-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2003

Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S., D/B/A Jeanne N. Taylor D.D.S., Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. State Farm Lloyds, Inc.

Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S., appealed a district court's summary judgment in favor of State Farm Lloyds, Inc. Taylor had sued State Farm, alleging that the insurer violated the Texas Insurance Code by issuing her business a multi-peril insurance policy with "hired and non-owned auto liability" coverage without mandatory personal injury protection (PIP) or uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that hired and non-owned auto liability insurance is distinct from "auto liability insurance" as defined in Article 5, Subchapter A of the Texas Insurance Code. The court further concluded that the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) had the authority under Article 5.02 to regulate such policies under other rating laws, thus making PIP and UM/UIM coverage not mandatory for Taylor's specific policy.

Insurance LawMulti-peril PolicyHired and Non-Owned Auto LiabilityPersonal Injury Protection (PIP)Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM)Texas Insurance CodeStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative Remedies Exhaustion
References
21
Case No. 14-12-00531-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2013

Denise Zimmerman v. Dr. Leslie Farias, D.D.S., P.A. F/K/A Dr. Leslie Farias, D.D.S., P.C. and Leslie Farias, Individually

Denise Zimmerman, a dental hygienist, sued Dr. Leslie Farias, D.D.S., P.A., and Leslie Farias individually for negligence after breaking her hip in a workplace fall due to alleged tripping hazards from computer cords. Neither Farias nor her Professional Association subscribed to Texas workers’ compensation insurance. Zimmerman's claims included unsafe working environment and an attempt to pierce the corporate veil against Farias. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Zimmerman did not provide sufficient evidence to support her claims of sham to perpetrate fraud or an unreasonable risk of harm in her premises liability claim.

Workplace personal injurySummary judgmentNegligencePremises liabilityCorporate veil piercingAlter egoDental office accidentAppellate reviewTexas lawNo-evidence summary judgment
References
36
Case No. 348-162629-94
Regular Panel Decision

D.N.S. v. Schattman

Relator D.N.S., M.D. (Dr. S.) seeks mandamus relief against an order by the trial court compelling him to produce a narrative report to Michael Anderson, the real party in interest. Dr. S. prepared this report for his professional liability insurer after receiving a healthcare liability claim notice from Anderson, who had sued his employers for wrongful termination, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress related to a work injury and drug screen. Anderson later added Dr. S. as a defendant and requested the narrative report during discovery, which Dr. S. objected to based on attorney-client, party-communication, and investigative privileges. The trial court ordered the production, citing that the report was prepared in anticipation of trial and testimony, and formed the basis of Dr. S.'s mental impressions as an expert, ruling it discoverable under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166b(2)(e)(l). The appellate court disagreed, holding that the specific rule for tangible reports, 166b(2)(e)(2), should apply, and found no evidence that the report was prepared in anticipation of Dr. S.'s testimony as an expert, thus concluding the trial court abused its discretion. Consequently, the petition for writ of mandamus is conditionally granted, requiring the trial court to vacate the order compelling production of the privileged narrative report.

MandamusDiscovery DisputePrivileged CommunicationAttorney-Client PrivilegeParty-Communication PrivilegeExpert Witness TestimonyHealthcare Liability ClaimWorkers' CompensationDrug ScreenAbuse of Discretion
References
12
Case No. 13-19-00500-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2021

Texas Auto Salvage, Inc., Gary Hack, and Daniel Hack v. D D Ramirez, Inc., Danny Ramirez Recycling, Inc., San Antonio Auto & Truck Salvage, Danny's Recycling & Precious Metals, LLC, Danny's Recycling, Inc., and Daniel Delagarza Ramirez

Appellants, Texas Auto Salvage, Inc., Gary Hack, and Daniel Hack (TASI), sued appellees, D D Ramirez, Inc., et al. (DDR), over a dispute regarding their neighboring metal recycling facilities in San Antonio. TASI alleged various claims including public and private nuisance, arguing DDR’s facilities were polluted and violated city ordinances, causing harm to TASI’s business and property. After a jury trial, the jury found against TASI on most claims, and the trial court granted DDR’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), issuing a take-nothing judgment. On appeal, TASI challenged the denial of injunctive relief and the JNOV on its public nuisance claim, as well as the exclusion of expert testimony and the factual insufficiency of evidence for its private nuisance claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that TASI lacked standing to bring its public and private nuisance claims as it failed to demonstrate a substantial special injury distinct from the public at large.

Public NuisancePrivate NuisanceStandingJudgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)Injunctive ReliefMunicipal OrdinancesMetal Recycling FacilitiesEnvironmental RegulationsCode ViolationsBusiness Dispute
References
50
Case No. 03-01-00491-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District Coppell Independent School District La Porte Independent School District And Port Neches-Groves Independent School District v. Felipe Alanis, Texas Commissioner of Education The Texas Education Agency Carol Keeton Rylander, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts And the Texas State Board of Education Alvarado I.S.D. Anthony I.S.D. Aubrey I.S.D. Bangs I.S.D.

Four Texas school districts, led by West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District, appealed the dismissal of their action seeking a declaratory judgment that the state's school finance system is unconstitutional. The districts contended that the $1.50 tax cap had become a de facto floor, forcing them to tax at the maximum allowable rate to provide education, thereby constituting an unconstitutional state ad valorem tax. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the districts failed to state a viable cause of action because they did not allege they were forced to tax at the cap specifically to provide the constitutionally-mandated 'accredited education.' The court also found the claim unripe, emphasizing that the focus should be on whether the state's requirements forced a lack of meaningful discretion in setting tax rates for an accredited education, not on a desired level of education or the number of districts taxing at the cap.

School Finance ReformConstitutional ChallengeAd Valorem TaxationEducation FundingDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineTexas Constitution Article VII, Section 1Texas Constitution Article VIII, Section 1-eProperty Tax Cap
References
30
Case No. No. 22-1046
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2024

Richard J. Malouf, D.D.S. v. the State of Texas Ex Rels. Christine Ellis, D.D.S. and Madelayne Castillo

Justice Young, joined by Justice Lehrmann, dissents from the majority's interpretation of Texas Human Resources Code § 36.002(8). The dissent argues that the Court's reading of the conjunction 'and' in the statute is implausible and undermines the legislative intent behind the Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act. Dr. Malouf had submitted nearly 2,000 claims falsely listing his own identification number instead of the actual service provider's. The majority concluded that no violation occurred because Malouf is also a dentist, implicitly providing the 'license type.' The dissent contends this interpretation renders the requirement to identify 'who actually provided the service' meaningless, makes fraud easier, and misapplies statutory construction canons like the presumption of consistent usage and the rule of lenity. The dissent emphasizes that context, common sense, and the statute's anti-fraud purpose mandate a conjunctive reading of the requirements.

Statutory InterpretationTextualismRule of LenityMedicaid Fraud Prevention ActTexas Human Resources CodeConjunctive vs. DisjunctiveLegislative IntentJudicial DissentLegal SemanticsHealth Care Law
References
49
Case No. E2015-01991-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2016

In Re D.R.S.

This is a termination of parental rights case concerning the child D.R.S., initiated by the Department of Children's Services against J.R.S. (Mother) and J.R.S. (Father). The trial court found clear and convincing evidence for multiple grounds of termination, including abandonment, substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, and persistence of conditions, and that termination was in the child's best interest. Mother and Father appealed, challenging these findings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights as modified, upholding the trial court's decision despite adjustments to specific grounds against each parent. The appellate court found consistent evidence of drug abuse, repeated incarcerations, and failure to provide a stable home, deeming termination to be in the child's best interest for integration into a safe, stable, and permanent home.

Parental rights terminationChild custodyDrug abuseIncarcerationMethamphetaminePermanency planAbandonmentParental fitnessBest interest of childChild neglect
References
48
Showing 1-10 of 8,228 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