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. 13-15-00024-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2015

Maria Zamarripa, as Temporary Guardian of the Estates of R. F. R. and R. J. R., Minors, and Olga Flores, as Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Yolanda Iris Flores v. Bay Area Health Care Group, Ltd. D/B/A Corpus Christi Medical Center, Hidalgo County EMS, and Hidalgo County Emergency Medical Service Foundation

This case involves an appeal by Maria Zamarripa and Olga Flores (Appellants) against Bay Area Health Care Group, Hidalgo County EMS, and Hidalgo County Emergency Medical Service Foundation (Appellees). The Appellants are challenging the trial court's orders that granted the Appellees' motions to dismiss. The core of the appeal centers on the qualifications of Nurse Spears as an expert witness and the sufficiency of expert reports regarding the standard of care, its breach, and causation in a medical malpractice claim involving Yolanda Iris Flores's injuries and death from placenta accreta and pre-term labor. Appellants argue that Nurse Spears is qualified, the expert reports adequately connect CCMC's alleged breach of care to the injuries, and alternatively, they are entitled to amend the reports. They pray for the reversal of the trial court's dismissal orders and a remand for further proceedings.

Medical MalpracticePlacenta AccretaPre-term LaborMedical NegligenceStandard of CareCausationExpert Witness QualificationsHospital LiabilityEmergency Medical Services (EMS)Wrongful Death
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2012

Williams v. Woodhull Medical & Mental Health Center

Valerie E. Williams filed an action against Woodhull Medical and Mental Health Center and other defendants, alleging discrimination and retaliation under federal and state laws, including Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986. Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom issued a Report and Recommendation, advising to grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiff Williams filed objections to the R&R, particularly contesting the recommendation on her Title VII retaliation claim. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, upon de novo review of the contested portions and clear error review of the uncontested, adopted the R&R in its entirety. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding Williams's claims, specifically noting a lack of causal connection for retaliation and insufficient evidence for a hostile work environment or due process violations.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VII RetaliationSummary JudgmentProcedural Due ProcessHostile Work EnvironmentMedical Negligence AllegationsPublic Health LawHospital EmploymentMagistrate Judge ReviewFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 56
References
80
Case No. 02A01-9505-CV-00118
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 1996

Cassandra Hughlett v. Shelby County Health Care Corporation, Regional Medical Center at Memphis A/K/A The Med

Plaintiff Cassandra Hughlett underwent a cesarean section in 1991, during which a surgical sponge was allegedly left in her abdomen by the defendants, Shelby County Health Care Corporation, Regional Medical Center at Memphis, a/k/a "The Med," and the University of Tennessee Medical Group, Inc. She subsequently experienced severe pain and required readmission to remove the foreign body, leading her to file a medical malpractice suit alleging negligence. The parties reached a settlement, but a dispute remained regarding whether the plaintiff could recover $6,777.17 in medical expenses paid by the Tennessee Medicaid program from the defendants. The trial court ruled in favor of Hughlett, holding that Medicaid payments were recoverable. "The Med" appealed, arguing that social security benefits (which they claimed Medicaid payments were part of) are collateral sources under T.C.A. § 29-26-119 and thus not recoverable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, citing Nance by Nance v. Westside Hosp. and federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1396a (a) 25(A)), which mandates states to pursue recovery from legally liable third parties. The court concluded that the plaintiff's losses were not "replaced or indemnified" due to the state's right of subrogation for Medicaid payments, making the benefits recoverable.

Medical MalpracticeMedicaid PaymentsCollateral Source RuleSubrogation RightsSocial Security BenefitsHealth Care Provider NegligenceSurgical ErrorForeign Body RetentionCesarean Section ComplicationsDamages Recovery
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2012

Douyon v. NY Medical Health Care, P.C.

Plaintiff Gabrielle Douyon sued Seymour Schneider, N.Y. Medical Health Care, P.C., Faraidoon Daniel Golyan, M.D., and Kourosh Golyan, alleging unfair debt collection practices under the FDCPA and NY GBL § 349, along with intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. The lawsuit stemmed from attempts to collect an alleged medical debt following Douyon's emergency heart surgery performed by Dr. Golyan. Both parties sought summary judgment. The court granted Plaintiff partial summary judgment on FDCPA violations related to statutory disclosures and a threatening voicemail. However, many other FDCPA and NY GBL claims were denied due to factual disputes, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed for lack of medical evidence, with negligence claims partially allowed to proceed on the basis of fear for physical safety.

Fair Debt Collections Practices ActNew York General Business Law § 349Debt CollectionSummary JudgmentEmotional DistressNegligenceAgency RelationshipVicarious LiabilityFreelance Debt CollectorUnfair and Deceptive Practices
References
105
Case No. 08-18-00011-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2019

Julio A. Hernandez and Rocio Martinez v. Enes M. Kanlic, M.D. El Paso County Hospital District D/B/A University Medical Center And Texas Tech Health Sciences Center

Julio Hernandez was rendered paraplegic after pelvic surgery at University Medical Center (UMC) by Dr. Enes M. Kanlic, an employee of Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC). Hernandez and Rocio Martinez sued Dr. Kanlic and UMC for medical malpractice. The case involved complex interactions between the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA), its election-of-remedies provision, pre-suit notice requirements, and the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA) with its expert report mandate. UMC was dismissed for lack of an expert report. Dr. Kanlic was dismissed, and TTUHSC was substituted as the defendant under TTCA's election-of-remedies, but TTUHSC was also dismissed due to lack of pre-suit notice. Hernandez appealed, raising issues related to the "borrowed servant" doctrine and challenging the constitutionality of TTCA's provisions under the Open Courts Clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissals, concluding that Hernandez failed to overcome the legislative hurdles.

Medical MalpracticeTexas Tort Claims ActTexas Medical Liability ActGovernmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityElection of RemediesPre-Suit NoticeExpert ReportBorrowed Servant DoctrineVicarious Liability
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

East Texas Medical Center Regional Health Care System v. Reddic

Reddic, a non-patient, slipped on a wet rug at East Texas Medical Center's reception desk, leading to a lawsuit against ETMC. ETMC moved to dismiss, arguing the claim was a health care liability claim (HCLC) requiring an expert report under Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, asserting a departure from accepted standards of safety. Reddic maintained it was a premises liability claim, not an HCLC, thus exempting her from filing an expert report. The dissenting judge contends that Reddic's status as a non-patient not involved in rendering medical care excludes her claim from the TMLA's ambit. The dissent advocates for affirming the trial court's denial of ETMC's motion to dismiss, emphasizing the distinction between patient and non-patient claims in healthcare facilities.

Medical MalpracticePremises LiabilityHealth Care Liability ClaimExpert ReportTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeChapter 74TMLASlip and FallHospital LiabilityNon-patient
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKelvy v. Columbia Medical Center of McKinney Subsidiary, L.P.

Jeannie McKelvy, an employee of Columbia Medical Center of McKinney Subsidiary, L.P., d/b/a McKinney Medical Center (the Hospital), sustained injuries from a slip and fall at work due to leaking lab equipment. She filed a negligence claim against the Hospital, which is a non-subscriber to workers' compensation insurance. The Hospital moved to dismiss her claims under the Texas Medical Liability Act (Chapter 74) for failure to file an expert report, arguing her claims were health care liability claims. The trial court granted the Hospital's motion. On appeal, McKelvy argued her claims were ordinary negligence claims, not subject to Chapter 74. The appellate court reviewed the definition of a 'health care liability claim' under section 74.001(a)(13) of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. The court concluded that McKelvy's claims, stemming from a hazardous floor caused by leaking lab equipment, did not have an indirect relationship to the provision of health care and did not involve a patient-physician relationship. Therefore, her claims were not health care liability claims, and the trial court erred in dismissing her case. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

References
5
Case No. 15-24-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2024

Cecile Erwin Young, in Her Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc.; And Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc. v. Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction and the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction issued by the 353rd Judicial District of Travis County. The appellants, including Cecile Erwin Young (Executive Commissioner of HHSC), Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc., and Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc., are challenging the lower court's decision. The appellees (Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company) had sought to enjoin the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) from proceeding with STAR & CHIP and STAR Kids managed care procurements. The core legal arguments revolve around whether HHSC's procurement processes violated Texas law, thereby rendering the intended contract awards unlawful ultra vires acts, and whether the appellees' claims are barred by sovereign immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The appellants contend that the district court abused its discretion by granting the injunction and denying the plea.

Appellate CourtTemporary InjunctionPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsProcurement DisputeManaged Care ContractsMedicaidCHIPTexas Health and Human Services Commission
References
95
Case No. 14-08-00627-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2009

Samuel Harden, M.D. v. East Texas Medical Center Health Care Associates

This appeal arises from a summary judgment granted in favor of East Texas Medical Center Health Care Associates (ETMC) in a breach-of-contract action against Samuel Harden, M.D. Harden filed a motion for new trial, asserting he never received notice of ETMC's motion for summary judgment or a hearing date. The appellate court reviewed the denial of the motion for new trial under the Craddock requirements, which dictate setting aside a judgment if the failure to respond was unintentional, a meritorious defense exists, and a new trial causes no delay. Finding that Harden's allegations of lack of notice were uncontroverted and ETMC failed to prove proper service, the court concluded that Harden satisfied the first Craddock element. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the trial court abused its discretion.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractMotion for New TrialDue ProcessNotice RequirementsTexas LawAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedureCivil ProcedureCraddock Test
References
8
Case No. 03-03-00355-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2004

Albert Hawkins, in His Capacity as Commissioner of Health & Human Services The Texas Health & Human Services Commission And the Texas Department of Health v. Dallas County Hospital District D/B/A Parkland Health and Hospital System

This case involves an appeal concerning the rules and formulas used to reimburse Texas teaching hospitals for graduate medical education (GME) costs from Medicaid funds. The core dispute is whether the Texas Health and Human Services Commission was legally mandated to use a specific statutory formula based on a hospital's annual actual GME costs, or if it could continue using its existing rule, which derived costs from a 1984 base-period figure adjusted for inflation, mirroring the federal Medicare approach. Dallas County Hospital District, operating Parkland Memorial Hospital, sued the department, alleging underpayment of over $72 million due to the use of the incorrect formula. The district court ruled in favor of Parkland, declaring the department's rules invalid. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the statutory formula for reimbursement was mandatory, while the department's discretion was limited to calculating variables within that prescribed formula, not to establishing an alternative method.

Medicaid reimbursementGraduate Medical EducationTeaching HospitalsStatutory interpretationTexas Health and Human Services CommissionParkland Memorial HospitalHealthcare fundingAdministrative lawJudicial reviewHealth policy
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 13,406 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