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. 13-16-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2018

Fatih Ozcelebi, M. D. v. K. v. Chowdary, M. D., Individually and D/B/A Valley Gastroenterology Clinic, P. A.: Valley Gastroenterology Clinic P. A.

Appellant, Fatih Ozcelebi, M.D., appealed various rulings in a long-standing dispute with appellees K.V. Chowdary, M.D., and Valley Gastroenterology Clinic, P.A. (VGC). The case stemmed from an employment agreement with non-compete and liquidated damages clauses, which Dr. Ozcelebi allegedly breached by leaving VGC early and starting his own practice. Dr. Chowdary sued for breach of contract and fiduciary duty, while Dr. Ozcelebi filed counterclaims including RICO, ERISA, and others. The trial court granted special exceptions against Dr. Ozcelebi's pleadings for improper verification and subsequently granted summary judgments in favor of Dr. Chowdary. Additionally, Dr. Ozcelebi was sanctioned for failing to attend a court-ordered mediation with his attorney. The Court of Appeals affirmed all of the trial court's judgments and orders.

Employment LawContract DisputeNon-Compete AgreementLiquidated DamagesBreach of Fiduciary DutyCivil ProcedureSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsMediation SanctionsERISA Preemption
References
50
Case No. 13-13-00552-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2015

Nolana Open MRI Center, Inc. v. Guillermo R. Pechero M.D.Ruben D. Pechero M.D. Maplestar Orthopedics, P. A.

Nolana Open MRI Center, Inc. appealed a judgment rendered against it following a bench trial. The appellees, Guillermo R. Pechero, M.D., Ruben D. Pechero, M.D., and Maplestar Orthopedics, P.A., filed a motion to show authority, contending Nolana's counsel lacked the authority to bring the appeal. The underlying dispute involved the sale of Nolana's assets, patient referrals, lease agreements, and counterclaims for fraudulent inducement, conversion, and breach of contract. A key issue was a 50-50 ownership split in Nolana between Jose Castro and Agustin Garcia, where Castro had settled with defendants and granted them limited power of attorney to oppose litigation, while Garcia sought to authorize the appeal. The Court of Appeals, reviewing the trial court's findings, concluded that Nolana's counsel lacked standing due to the unresolved ownership conflict regarding the authority to initiate the appeal.

Appellate ProcedureJurisdictionMotion to Show AuthorityCorporate AuthorityShareholder DisputeLimited Power of AttorneyBreach of ContractTheft Liability ActFraudulent InducementTortious Interference
References
30
Case No. 02-11-00480-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2012

in the Interest of A.L.W. and M.M.P., the Children

This memorandum opinion from the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, affirms a trial court's judgment terminating the parental rights of D.W.P. (Father) and E.W. (Mother) to their children, A.L.W. and M.M.P., and granting managing conservatorship of M.M.P. to A.M. and B.M. (Maroneys). The parents appealed the termination, citing insufficient evidence, while the children's Grandmother, D.P., appealed the Maroneys' intervention and other procedural issues. The case details the parents' extensive history of drug abuse, criminal activities, domestic disputes, and non-compliance with court-ordered service plans. Psychological evaluations revealed significant personality disorders and a high risk of relapse, leading the court to conclude that termination was in the children's best interest due to the parents' inability to provide a stable and safe environment.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyDrug AbuseSubstance AddictionCriminal HistoryFamily LawAppellate ReviewPsychological EvaluationBest Interest of ChildService Plan Non-compliance
References
51
Case No. 04-19-00538-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2021

William Alec Tisdall, M.D. and William A. Tisdall, M.D., P.A. D/B/A Spine & Joint Pain Specialists v. Thomas Varebrook and Rebecca Varebrook

William Alec Tisdall, M.D., and his medical practice appealed a final judgment stemming from a medical negligence lawsuit initiated by Thomas and Rebecca Varebrook. The jury found Tisdall negligent, awarding substantial damages after Thomas developed a severe septic sacroiliac joint infection following steroid injections administered by Dr. Tisdall, which left him permanently disabled and unable to continue his police career. On appeal, Tisdall argued that the trial court erred by allowing improper jury argument, admitting cumulative and prejudicial independent medical examinations, and denying a motion for mistrial. The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the jury argument was invited error, the medical examination evidence was properly admitted given its probative value and lack of unfair prejudice, and any error regarding the motion for mistrial was unpreserved and, if preserved, cured by the court's instruction to disregard.

Medical negligenceJury verdict appealEvidentiary rulingsImproper jury argumentIndependent medical examinationsMotion for mistrialInstruction to disregardStandard of careCausationDamages award
References
31
Case No. 07-15-00113-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2016

Mohammed Fawwaz Shoukfeh, M.D., P.A., D/B/A Texas Cardiac Center v. James G. Grattan and Texas Workforce Commission

Dr. Grattan filed a wage claim against Mohammed Fawwaz Shoukfeh, M.D., P.A., d/b/a Texas Cardiac Center (TCC) under the Texas Payday Act, alleging miscalculation of his pro rata share of overhead expenses. The dispute arose because TCC included Dr. Qaddour's salary in overhead but excluded him from the pro rata division among physicians for expense calculation. After various appeals, the Texas Workforce Commission ultimately awarded Dr. Grattan $125,988.81 in unpaid wages. TCC then sought a trial de novo, where the 99th District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Grattan and the TWC. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was substantial evidence that Dr. Grattan's employment agreement did not permit TCC to deduct more than a pro rata share based on all physicians employed.

Wage claimTexas Payday ActEmployment agreementOverhead expensesPro rata shareSummary judgmentAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceContract interpretationPhysician compensation
References
23
Case No. 13-0096
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2014

Tenet Hospitals Limited, a Texas Limited Partnership D/B/A Providence Memorial Hospital, and Michael D. Compton, M.D. v. Elizabeth Rivera, as Next Friend for M.R.

This case concerns a challenge to the constitutionality of the Medical Liability Act's ten-year statute of repose. Petitioners, Tenet Hospitals Limited and Michael D. Compton, M.D., sought summary judgment arguing the statute barred a medical negligence claim filed by Elizabeth Rivera on behalf of M.R. The alleged negligence occurred in 1996, and the suit was filed in 2011, five years after the 2003 repose statute's 2006 deadline. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed, finding the statute unconstitutional as applied to M.R. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Rivera, acting as M.R.'s next friend, failed to demonstrate due diligence in filing the claim within the three-year grace period afforded by the statute. The Court also found the retroactivity challenge failed due to the compelling public interest in the Medical Liability Act and the sufficient grace period provided. Consequently, the Supreme Court rendered judgment that the plaintiff take nothing.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of ReposeOpen Courts ProvisionRetroactivityDue DiligenceMinor's ClaimConstitutional LawSummary JudgmentTexas Supreme CourtHealthcare Liability
References
26
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S.M. v. M.M.-M.

This case involves a matrimonial action between S.M. (plaintiff) and M.M-M. (defendant) concerning pendente lite relief, child support, maintenance, and the equitable distribution of marital assets, specifically the transfer of the husband's business (EA & D) to his daughter. The court granted the wife's request for the husband to continue paying all costs associated with maintaining the marital residence and awarded her $1,290 per month in temporary child support, retroactive to July 30, 2015. However, the court denied the wife's motion to determine if the transfer of EA & D was improper, reserving the issue for trial due to a factual dispute over the husband's intent. The court also denied the request for a forensic evaluation of EA & D and M. Studios, stating it lacked jurisdiction over the transferred business and that M. Studios had no assets to value. The court noted that if the transfer is later found improper, the wife could be awarded a greater share of remaining marital property.

divorce proceedingstemporary maintenancechild support awardmarital property disputebusiness asset transferequitable distribution factorsforensic accounting denialmatrimonial lawNew York Supreme Courtpendente lite relief
References
12
Case No. M2002-02242-COA-R3-CV, 3300DV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2004

B.M.M. v. P.R.M.

This case involves a child custody dispute where the mother, B. M. M., and father, P. R. M., initially had a parenting plan granting the mother primary residential parent status with supervised visitation for the father due to the mother's sexual abuse concerns. The father petitioned for unsupervised visitation, and the mother sought to relocate to Florida with their daughter. The trial court denied the mother's relocation and granted the father unsupervised visitation, prompting the mother to defy the order by moving to Florida. Consequently, the father was granted emergency custody, the mother was found in criminal contempt, and was ordered to pay the father's private investigator fees and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed all decisions, concluding that the trial court correctly found no basis for the mother's sexual abuse allegations and that her actions were detrimental to the child's well-being and relationship with the father.

Child CustodyParental RelocationSupervised VisitationCriminal ContemptParental AlienationSexual Abuse AllegationsBest Interest of the ChildMaterial Change in CircumstancesAttorney's FeesPrivate Investigator Fees
References
12
Case No. 3-93-515-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1994

Suzanna L. Carlson and Travelers Indemnity Company of Rhode Island v. William P. Taylor, M.D. Austin Back Clinic Capital Radiology Association J. Neil Rutledge, M.D.Richard D. Tallman, M.D. And Austin Diagnostic Clinic

Appellant Suzanne L. Carlson brought a medical malpractice action against multiple appellees. Travelers Indemnity Company of Rhode Island intervened as Carlson's employer's workers' compensation carrier. The trial court struck Carlson's expert witnesses and granted summary judgment for the appellees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by improperly striking expert witnesses and freezing discovery, thereby depriving Carlson of the opportunity to present controverting evidence. The case is remanded for a new trial.

Medical MalpracticeExpert Witness ExclusionSummary Judgment ReversalDiscovery AbuseAppellate Court DecisionTexas Civil ProcedureTrial Court DiscretionWorkers' Compensation InterventionRemand for New TrialStandard of Care
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 5,170 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