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. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garza v. Doctors on Wilcrest, P.A.

Garza, an x-ray technician and radiation safety officer, was fired by Doctors on Wilerest, P.A., Duncan G. Bowell, M.D., and Alan Reichman, M.D., after reporting uncertified x-ray procedures to the Texas Board of Medical Examiners. A jury initially awarded Garza damages for wrongful termination, but the trial court granted the Doctors' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). Garza appealed, arguing the trial court erred in granting JNOV and denying her trial amendment to add a private whistleblower cause of action. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding Garza's case did not fit the narrow Sabine Pilot exception for refusing an illegal act, nor did it extend to the Del Mar exception. Furthermore, the court declined to recognize a common law cause of action for private whistleblowers, citing the Texas Supreme Court's precedent in Austin v. Healthtrust, Inc., which defers such matters to legislative action.

Wrongful TerminationWhistleblower ProtectionEmployment-at-will doctrineCommon Law ExceptionSabine Pilot ExceptionLegislative IntentTexas Labor LawJNOVTrial AmendmentMedical Professionals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2005

Nikolic v. Regent Wall Street Hotel

The claimant sustained work-related physical injuries and a subsequent psychiatric condition. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge allowed reports from a Serbian neuropsychiatrist to establish continuing psychiatric disability, despite objections from the employer and carrier concerning the doctor's credentials. The Workers’ Compensation Board, in an amended decision, rejected the objection to the Serbian doctor's report and found no prejudice to the carrier regarding a compensation award made prior to an independent medical examination. The appeals court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the carrier waived the right to object by not cross-examining the doctor, and that the Board had continuing jurisdiction to amend its initial decision.

foreign health care provider reportpsychiatric conditionadmissibility of evidenceWorkers’ Compensation Boardcontinuing jurisdictionwaiver of objectionindependent medical examinationappellate reviewNew York Workers' Compensationmedical credentials
References
10
Case No. 15-0129
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2014

Baltasar D. Cruz v. James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman D/B/A Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen

This case involves a libel lawsuit filed by Baltasar D. Cruz against James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report (BOR), and Katherine Haenschen. The lawsuit stemmed from a statement in an article posted on the BOR website by Van Sickle regarding Cruz, who was a judicial candidate. The trial court initially granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and awarded attorney's fees to all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit and the award of attorney's fees to James Van Sickle. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney's fees to Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen, ruling that as they were represented pro bono, they did not 'incur' attorney's fees as required by the TCPA.

LibelDefamationTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPPro Bono RepresentationAttorney's FeesJudicial CandidatePublic OfficialFreedom of SpeechStatutory Interpretation
References
83
Case No. ADJ830768
Regular
Apr 09, 2009

MIKE OLSON vs. PACIFIC COAST SERVICES, EMPLOYER COMPENSATION INSURANCE CO.

This case involves a lien claimant, Jennifer Scott, seeking reconsideration after her $\$750.00$ lien for a doctor's report was disallowed. The WCJ found the report not to be an allowable medical-legal cost. The petition for reconsideration was dismissed primarily because it was unverified, a requirement under Labor Code section 5902, and the defect was not cured. Even if considered on the merits, the Board would have denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that the report was not a compensable medical-legal expense. The report was procured at the applicant's attorney's request, not by an authorized medical evaluator, and the attorney failed to establish the doctor's qualifications as an expert rater.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial cumulative injuryUpper extremitiesTruck mechanicApplicant counsel's lienMedical-legal costLabor Code section 5811Labor Code section 4620(c)
References
1
Case No. ADJ6498676
Regular
Sep 13, 2012

LUCAS MARINICS vs. GILMORE HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant's claim of discriminatory termination under Labor Code section 132a. The applicant argued he was fired because he reported an industrial injury and submitted a doctor's report requiring modified duty. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) majority affirmed the judge's finding that the employer did not violate section 132a. This decision was based on the judge's credible testimony that the employer had already decided to terminate the applicant prior to the injury report. However, one member dissented, arguing the applicant met his burden to show termination was due to his injury, citing the timing of the termination after the doctor's note and the employer's shifting reasons.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132aIndustrial InjuryReconsiderationFindings and OrderCompromise and ReleaseTerminationDiscriminatory ActsPrima Facie CaseAffirmative Defense
References
3
Case No. 4-85-00485-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 1988

American Home Assurance Co. v. Rodriguez

Ana B. Rodriguez, an employee of Del Monte Corporation, suffered a back injury and filed a worker's compensation claim. She entered into a compromise settlement agreement with American Home Assurance Company for $3,600 and two years of future medical expenses. Rodriguez later sued to set aside the agreement, claiming misrepresentation regarding her injuries, as her condition was later diagnosed as a herniated disc requiring surgery, not just a sprain as initially reported by doctors. The trial court set aside the agreement. The Court of Appeals initially reversed, finding no evidence of misrepresentation or reliance. However, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, finding some evidence to support the trial court's judgment and remanded for consideration of factual insufficiency. On remand, the Court of Appeals (majority opinion) affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence that American Home used Rodriguez's doctor's reports (making the doctor its agent) and that Rodriguez relied on Dr. Williams' representations. A dissenting opinion argued that the evidence was factually insufficient to support the jury's findings of agency and reliance.

MisrepresentationWorkers' CompensationCompromise Settlement AgreementHerniated DiscAgency RelationshipFactual InsufficiencyRelianceBack InjuryAppellate ReviewSupreme Court Remand
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 1965

Rivera v. Hellman

This case involves a motion to confirm a Special Referee's report concerning the amounts and priorities of various liens. The Special Referee conducted a hearing and reported on claims from an attorney for the plaintiff ($793.50), Roosevelt Hospital ($846.53), and the Millinery Health Fund ($641.00, later adjusted to $528). The report established the amounts of each lien and recommended priorities, placing the attorney's lien first, followed by the hospital lien (except for a $12 outpatient service), and then the compensation lien. The court concurred with the Special Referee's report and recommendations, granting the motion to confirm.

Lien PriorityAttorney's LienHospital LienDisability BenefitsWorkmen's Compensation LawSpecial Referee ReportMotion GrantedNew York Supreme CourtLien LawMotion Practice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colindres v. Carpenito

Plaintiff Rochelle Colindres sought a protective order to deny defendants' demand for a medical report from her former treating psychologist, Diane Henry, or alternatively, relief from compliance with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts § 202.17(b)(1). Colindres argued that the defendants waived their right to the report as the independent medical examination (IME) already occurred, and that obtaining the report would be an undue hardship since Henry ceased treatment due to Colindres' attendance issues. Defendants Mario Carpenito, Jr., City of White Plains, and White Plains Parking Department opposed, asserting that the report was necessary to clarify alleged injuries, prepare for cross-examination, and facilitate settlement, highlighting Colindres' complex medical history predating the incident. The court denied both branches of Colindres' motion, finding that the rule applies broadly to personal injury actions, defendants did not waive their entitlement, and Colindres failed to prove it was impossible to obtain the report. The court ordered Colindres to exchange a compliant medical report from Diane Henry by March 27, 2017.

protective ordermedical report disclosurediscovery disputepsychological treatmentindependent medical examinationCPLR 310322 NYCRR 202.17waiver of discoveryundue hardshippersonal injury damages
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chaplin v. Pathmark Supermarkets

This case addresses a motion by defendants, including Supermarkets General Corp., for a protective order to vacate the plaintiff Mimi Chaplin's notice for discovery and inspection of accident reports. Mimi Chaplin sought these reports after sustaining personal injuries from a fall at the defendant's premises. The court, presided over by Justice James F. Niehoff, analyzed the newly enacted CPLR 3101 (g), which mandates full disclosure of accident reports prepared in the regular course of business. The court found that the accident report in question was prepared in Supermarkets General Corp.'s regular course of business, rendering it discoverable regardless of its potential use in litigation, thus denying the defendants' motion.

DiscoveryProtective OrderAccident ReportsCPLR 3101(g)Litigation PreparationRegular Course of BusinessPersonal InjuryNegligenceDisclosureEvidence
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 6,156 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