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. 03-10-00134-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2012

Pifi Constancio, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Ruben Constancio v. Shannon Medical Center D/B/A Shannon West Texas Memorial Hospital

Pifi Constancio appealed the district court's decision to exclude her expert witness's causation opinion and grant a no-evidence summary judgment in her health care liability claim against Shannon Medical Center. Constancio alleged the hospital's nurses were negligent in concurrently administering medications and failing to use proper monitoring devices, which she claimed led to her husband, Ruben Constancio's, respiratory event, brain damage, and subsequent death. The Court of Appeals found that the exclusion of the expert's testimony was an abuse of discretion and that there was more than a scintilla of evidence to create a material fact issue regarding causation and wrongful death damages. Consequently, the court reversed both the order excluding the expert testimony and the order granting summary judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationSummary JudgmentRespiratory EventOversedationPulse OximetryAbuse of DiscretionHealth Care LiabilityWrongful Death
References
37
Case No. 15-25-00167-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Shannon Medical Center v. Michael Sickels and James Christopher Cole

Radiologists Michael Sickels and James Christopher Cole sued Shannon Medical Center, alleging the hospital failed to properly monitor, report, and restrict their exposure to radiation while they treated patients, leading to injuries including cancer and amputations. Shannon Medical Center, a licensed health care provider, moved to dismiss these claims under Section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, arguing that they constituted health care liability claims requiring a statutory expert report. Sickels and Cole denied their claims were health care liability claims, asserting they arose from violations of the Texas Radiation Control Act and Texas Administrative Code, that they were employees of Shannon Medical Center, and that they had satisfied the expert report requirement by providing voluminous medical records. The trial court denied Shannon Medical Center's motion to dismiss, prompting this appeal. Shannon Medical Center argues that the claims satisfy all elements of a health care liability claim, highlighting the substantial nexus to health care, the involvement of medical equipment, and the need for expert testimony. They also contend that Sickels and Cole are not employees of the hospital, but rather independent contractors employed by Shannon Clinic, and that the medical records provided do not meet Chapter 74's expert report requirements for standard of care, breach, and causation, nor was a curriculum vitae served. Shannon Medical Center seeks reversal of the trial court's denial, dismissal of the case with prejudice, and an award of statutory remedies.

Health Care Liability ClaimMedical MalpracticeExpert ReportRadiation ExposureHospital NegligenceTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 74Motion to DismissEmployment StatusIndependent ContractorRadiology
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1979

Hughes, Harrison & Brown Roofing, Inc. v. Merchants Insurance

Plaintiffs, a corporation and individuals, initiated an action seeking a declaration that their insurance company, the defendant, was obligated to defend and indemnify them in a negligence lawsuit filed by an employee, Patrick Paul Black. The underlying negligence action alleged that the corporation failed to secure workers' compensation insurance. The defendant insurer denied its obligation, citing policy exclusions related to workers' compensation liabilities and disputing coverage for the individual plaintiffs. Initially, the Supreme Court, Orange County, granted the plaintiffs' request for accelerated judgment, compelling the insurer to provide defense. However, this judgment was subsequently reversed on appeal, with the appellate court noting the absence of the actual insurance policy and the impropriety of adjudicating coverage without it, especially concerning the workers' compensation exclusion.

Insurance coverage disputeDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyWorkers' compensation exclusionAccelerated judgmentNegligence actionEmployer liabilityAppellate reviewPolicy interpretationSummary judgment
References
0
Case No. 14-09-01092-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2011

Patrick B. Alexander v. Josephine Alexander

Patrick B. Alexander appealed a post-answer default judgment of divorce, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial and the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting property division, spousal maintenance, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion for new trial, concluding Patrick failed to prove his absence was unintentional or not due to conscious indifference under the Craddock test. However, the court found Josephine Alexander presented insufficient evidence for the property division, spousal maintenance, and attorney's fees. Consequently, these specific portions of the divorce decree were reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The remainder of the trial court's judgment was affirmed, and Josephine's request for sanctions against Patrick's attorney was denied.

DivorceDefault JudgmentNew TrialProperty DivisionSpousal MaintenanceAttorney's FeesLegal SufficiencyCraddock TestAbuse of DiscretionRule 11 Agreement
References
15
Case No. E2013-02444-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2014

Phillip Dean Patrick v. Nelson Global Products, Inc.

Phillip Dean Patrick, a former employee of Nelson Global Products, Inc., filed a retaliatory discharge action alleging he was unlawfully terminated after a co-worker filed a workers' compensation claim. Patrick claimed that his co-worker's filing was a substantial factor in his discharge. The trial court granted the employer's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the complaint failed to allege a well-defined public policy violation or that Patrick's exercise of a protected right was a substantial factor in his termination, specifically noting that the retaliatory discharge action does not extend to bystanders or witnesses of a co-worker's injury.

Retaliatory DischargeAt-will EmploymentWorkers' Compensation ClaimMotion to DismissPublic Policy ExceptionAppellate ReviewCo-worker InjuryBystander TerminationLegal SufficiencyTennessee Court of Appeals
References
11
Case No. ADJ8004482
Regular
Sep 04, 2012

SETH PATRICK LANTZ (PATRICK LANTZ), Deceased; SHANNON M. LANTZ, Individually And As Guardian Ad Litem For ZANE A. LANTZ; KODY R. LANTZ; HALEY M. FITZJERRELL, And TYLER P. LANTZ, Minors vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON, Legally Uninsured, Adjusted By STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to determine if Lieutenant Seth Patrick Lantz's fatal car accident during his commute arose from his employment. The WCAB found the accident did not arise out of or in the course of employment, reversing the prior decision. The Board determined the "going and coming rule" applied, as Lieutenant Lantz's extended shift and acting as watch commander did not constitute a special mission exception. Therefore, the death benefit claim was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeath BenefitsGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionCommuteIndustrial InjuryCorrectional OfficerWatch CommanderReconsiderationFindings of Fact
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patrick Olajide Akinwamide v. Transportation Insurance Company, CNA Insurance Company and Automatic Data Processing Inc.

Patrick Olajide Akinwamide has been involved in a protracted legal dispute since 1997, challenging the denial of his workers' compensation benefits. This opinion addresses his appeal of a 2014 trial court ruling, which declared him a vexatious litigant and imposed $3,000 in sanctions. Akinwamide contested the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction, its plenary power, and the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel, arguing his common-law claims remained pending. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction, its plenary power had expired, and Akinwamide's claims were indeed barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel due to repeated relitigation of issues previously decided in multiple prior appeals. The court also upheld the sanctions and vexatious litigant declaration, citing Akinwamide's continuous filing of frivolous pleadings and attempts to relitigate settled matters, which demonstrated an improper purpose including harassment.

Workers' Compensation DisputeVexatious LitigantSanctionsSubject-Matter JurisdictionRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelPlenary PowerAppellate ReviewPro Se LitigationFrivolous Pleading
References
28
Case No. 03-04-00273-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2006

Lawrence White v. Patrick Browning

Patrick Browning sued Lawrence White for injuries from an automobile collision, and a jury awarded Browning damages for future physical pain, mental anguish, and loss of earning capacity. White appealed, contesting the exclusion of his expert witness and the sufficiency of evidence for the damage awards. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in excluding White's expert and concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's awards for Browning's permanent cognitive impairments and resulting loss of earning capacity.

Automobile CollisionPersonal InjuryExpert Witness ExclusionEvidence SufficiencyDamages AwardFuture Pain and SufferingMental AnguishLoss of Earning CapacityAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
31
Case No. 13-07-017-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2009

Patrick Lacour v. Lankford Company, Incorporated

Patrick LaCour, an employee of Lankford Company, Inc., suffered a shoulder injury while working as a sandblaster and painter on an offshore drilling platform. After notifying his employer of the injury, he was terminated. LaCour subsequently filed a claim for wrongful termination, seeking reinstatement and backpay under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Lankford Company, Inc., arguing that LaCour failed to exhaust administrative remedies and was no longer qualified for employment. The Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, finding that LHWCA's notice and filing requirements for disability claims did not apply to wrongful termination claims and that the employer failed to conclusively prove LaCour's inability to perform available job duties.

Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActWrongful terminationSummary judgment appealReinstatement and backpayAdministrative remediesNotice requirementsDisability to perform job dutiesBurden of proofTexas Court of AppealsMaritime injury
References
21
Case No. 05-12-01718-CV, DC-11-10636
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2014

Patrick Hudson v. Southern Insurance Company

Patrick Hudson appealed a judgment in favor of Southern Insurance Company, a workers' compensation insurer, concerning a thumb injury sustained during employment. Hudson challenged the trial court's evidentiary rulings and its findings regarding his maximum medical improvement (MMI) date and impairment rating (IR). The core dispute revolved around the extent of his compensable injury, including anxiety, depression, and chronic pain, in addition to his thumb injury. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings and that the record supported the findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Hudson's MMI and IR. The court found Hudson waived objections to a doctor's qualifications by not raising them at the administrative level and that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the trial court's adopted MMI of February 3, 2009, and IR of 1%.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulingsFindings of FactConclusions of LawMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Impairment Rating (IR)Designated DoctorJudicial ReviewTexas Labor Code
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,319 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