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. 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. SAL 96100; 96096
Regular
Jul 03, 2007

JEANNE LAWRENCE vs. CYPRESS URGENT CARE and PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE, TENET/DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA

This case involves a worker who sustained two industrial injuries, the first in 2001 with Cypress Urgent Care and the second in 2001 with Tenet/Doctors Hospital of Manteca. The defendant, Tenet/Doctors Hospital, sought reconsideration of a joint findings and award that attributed 25% of the worker's temporary disability and vocational rehabilitation costs to their injury. The WCAB granted reconsideration, finding that while the second injury occurred after the first, evidence indicated the first injury contributed to the worker's need for benefits, thus supporting the apportionment.

WCABReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary Total Disability (TTD)Vocational RehabilitationApportionmentConsecutive InjuriesMedical TreatmentSelf-Insured
References
0
Case No. ADJ3434154
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

GARY ZIMMERMAN vs. LEPRINO FOODS, INC., MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that Leprino Foods violated Labor Code section 132a by failing to place the applicant on a required union leave of absence. While the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant's termination was lawful based on a doctor's work restrictions, they awarded a 50% increase in compensation up to $10,000, plus costs, due to the Section 132a violation. However, the Board denied back pay, agreeing with the WCJ that lost wages were not caused by the employer's contract violation but by the lawful termination and the applicant's insufficient mitigation efforts. A dissenting commissioner argued for back pay, citing the discriminatory nature of the termination during the mandated leave and the lack of evidence for the WCJ's findings on misleading doctors and failed mitigation.

Labor Code section 132aLeprino FoodsMatrix Absence Management CompanyGary ZimmermanBrian Belanger D.C.permanent and stationary reportunion grievanceArbitratorback payreinstatement
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

RONE ENGINEERING SERVICE, LTD. v. Culberson

This is a restricted appeal from a no-answer default judgment against Rone Engineering Service, Ltd., filed by Troy Culberson. The core issue was whether the trial court acquired personal jurisdiction over the appellant due to discrepancies in the defendant's name on the citation and return of service versus the judgment. The appellate court found that the record did not affirmatively demonstrate strict compliance with the rules governing service of process. It concluded that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Rone Engineering Service, Ltd. Therefore, the court vacated the default judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

restricted appealdefault judgmentservice of processpersonal jurisdictionmisnomercorporate identityappellate reviewvoid judgmentprocedural errorremand
References
13
Case No. NO. 09-04-368 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2005

Silsbee Hospital, Inc. D/B/A Columbia Silsbee Doctors Hospital v. Lonny George

Lonny George, an employee of Silsbee Hospital, Inc., a nonsubscriber to workers' compensation, sustained injuries and sued the hospital. He had signed a waiver agreement related to an employee benefit plan, which the hospital contended released them from liability for personal injuries. The Court of Appeals examined the waiver agreement's language, applying contract construction rules and the express negligence doctrine, and found it only applied to the parent company, Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corporation, not the subsidiary Hospital, as George's injuries arose from employment with the Hospital. The court also rejected the Hospital's affirmative defenses of ratification, release, waiver, and estoppel. However, the appellate court determined there was harmful error in jury selection due to the trial court's failure to strike two unequivocally biased veniremembers. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

NonsubscriberWorkers' Compensation WaiverEmployee InjuryExpress Negligence RuleJury BiasAppellate ReversalRemand for New TrialContract InterpretationAffirmative DefensesTexas Law
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephens v. Cooper

Plaintiffs, a group of chiropractors, medical doctors, and PTS Thermal Imaging, brought an action against the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Insurance. They challenged a regulation establishing a fee schedule for thermography services under New York's no-fault automobile insurance law, alleging violations of the New York Administrative Procedure Act, due process, equal protection, and the Sherman Act. The Superintendent moved to dismiss the Sherman Act claims and for abstention. The court granted the motion to dismiss, abstaining under the Burford doctrine, finding that New York has a comprehensive insurance regulatory scheme and that the case involves a challenge to the Superintendent's implementation of state law, thus warranting federal court abstention.

Abstention DoctrineBurford AbstentionNo-Fault InsuranceFee Schedule RegulationThermography ServicesInsurance LawFederal Court JurisdictionSherman Antitrust ActDue Process ChallengeEqual Protection Challenge
References
9
Case No. RDG 120102
Regular
Jul 30, 2007

Dominic Watkins vs. Outback Steakhouse, State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case concerns the application of the correct permanent disability rating schedule for an industrial injury occurring between 2003 and 2004. The applicant argued that the pre-2005 schedule should apply due to treating physician reports from November 2004 indicating permanent disability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed the initial decision, agreeing that the doctor's reports, which noted a "chronic problem" and imposed significant work restrictions, sufficiently "indicated the existence of permanent disability" to trigger the older 1997 Schedule.

Rating Schedule2005 Schedule1997 SchedulePermanent DisabilityTreating PhysicianMedical-Legal ReportLabor Code Section 4660(d)Prospective ApplicationCumulative InjuryIndustrial Injury
References
1
Case No. 2017-06-0070
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2017

Baker, Tonya v. Electolux

Tonya Baker sought an expedited hearing for medical and temporary disability benefits after a workplace fall. She requested payment for medical bills, a change in her authorized treating physician, and temporary disability payments. Electrolux argued she was not entitled to these benefits, stating they provided medical treatment. The Court found Ms. Baker likely to succeed in obtaining a new panel of physicians but denied her requests for temporary disability benefits and payment of unauthorized medical bills, citing a lack of evidence for the latter and no doctor-issued restrictions for the former. The incident was deemed compensable, but Ms. Baker's ongoing pain after being released by the authorized physician led to the decision for a new panel.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsPanel of PhysiciansAuthorized Treating PhysicianSciaticaLumbar StrainWorkplace InjuryMedical Treatment Dispute
References
2
Case No. 2024-06-4392
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2025

Tan, Allan v. Select Specialty Hospital-Nash Select Medical Corporation

Allan Tan, an employee, sought reimbursement for an unauthorized medical bill from Dr. Philip Elizondo and temporary disability benefits from June 10 to July 8, 2024, after injuring his low back at work. The employer, Select Specialty Hospital, contested both requests, arguing it was not liable for an unauthorized doctor’s bill and Mr. Tan was not restricted from work during the period for which benefits were sought, as per his authorized physician, Dr. Robert Lowe. The Court denied both requests, finding Mr. Tan had not met his burden to prove entitlement, as Dr. Lowe had not recommended surgery (a prerequisite for a second opinion under state law) and had released him to full-duty work.

Workers' Compensation ClaimsExpedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Bill ReimbursementUnauthorized Medical TreatmentSecond Medical OpinionTreating PhysicianFull-Duty ReleaseWork RestrictionsBurden of Proof
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rios v. Indiana Bayer Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee with a prosthetic leg, sued his employer (Defendant, formerly Mobay Corporation) under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), alleging disability discrimination after being denied a production technician position. The denial was based on existing medical restrictions from his doctor, which prohibited him from performing essential functions of the physically demanding job like climbing ladders, heavy lifting, and working twelve-hour shifts. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Plaintiff was not a qualified individual for the position as he could not perform its essential functions, nor could reasonable accommodations be made without eliminating core job duties. All claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActAmericans with Disabilities ActReasonable AccommodationEssential FunctionsPhysical LimitationsProsthesisProduction Technician
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,244 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