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. 01-21-00008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2024

Sealy Emergency Room, L.L.C. and Kannappan Krishnaswamy, M.D. v. Dr. Atul Dhingra, Dr. Swapan Dubey and Dr. Sanjeev Dubey

Appellants Sealy Emergency Room, L.L.C., and Dr. Kannappan Krishnaswamy appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of appellees Free Standing Emergency Room Managers of America, L.L.C., Dr. Atul Dhingra, Dr. Swapan Dubey, and Dr. Sanjeev Dubey. The dispute arose from a management agreement for an emergency room, with appellants bringing counterclaims and third-party claims for breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent inducement, and negligence. After a previous dismissal for lack of appellate jurisdiction was reversed by the Texas Supreme Court, the First District of Texas Court of Appeals reviewed the merits. The court found that the appellants failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on any of their claims, concluding that the alleged breaches of contract were not supported by the agreement's plain language or that the best-efforts clause was unenforceable. Furthermore, claims of fraud and negligence were not substantiated or were barred by the economic loss rule. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment.

Contract DisputeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractFraudFraudulent InducementNegligenceEconomic Loss RuleTexas LawHealthcare Management
References
45
Case No. 03-10-00019-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2011

Dr. Don Brantley, Belinda Castillo, Dr. Corinne Alvarez-Sanders and Patricia Logterman// Texas Youth Commission Cherrie Townsend in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director v. Texas Youth Commission Cherrie Townsend in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director// Dr. Don Brantley, Belinda Castillo, Dr. Corinne Alvarez-Sanders

This case concerns challenges by current and former employees of the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) against the constitutionality of Senate Bill 103, which converted TYC employment from 'for-cause' to 'at-will.' The plaintiffs, including Dr. Don Brantley, Belinda Castillo, Dr. Corinne Alvarez-Sanders, and Patricia Logterman, sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief based on alleged wrongful termination, due process violations, defamation, and unconstitutional takings. The district court partially granted and denied TYC's plea to the jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Castillo's claims for lack of ripeness and the defamation and takings claims for all plaintiffs due to sovereign immunity. It reversed in part, allowing Alvarez-Sanders and Logterman to replead their wrongful-termination/due-process claims for equitable relief against a proper state official, and similarly reversed in part Brantley's wrongful-termination/due-process claim.

Employment LawPublic EmployeesAt-Will EmploymentFor-Cause EmploymentDue ProcessConstitutional LawRetroactive LegislationEx Post Facto LawBill of AttainderSovereign Immunity
References
37
Case No. 09-07-370 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2008

Alex Wang and Serena Wang v. Wen-Ning Lee, Pao-Yu Lin and Eric C. Lee

The Lees sued the Wangs for fraud committed during the sale of two Baskin-Robbins franchises. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the Lees, awarding them $205,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment against Alex Wang due to a lack of legal sufficiency of the evidence. While affirming that there was sufficient evidence of fraud by Serena Wang, the court found the damages award factually insufficient, as the Lees did not prove the value of what they actually received. Consequently, the case was remanded for a new trial specifically on the fraud claims against Serena Wang, while Alex Wang was absolved.

fraudmisrepresentationfranchise agreementdetrimental reliancedamageslegal sufficiencyfactual sufficiencycontract disputebusiness saleappellate review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wang v. Wen-Ning Lee

Wen-Ning Lee, Pao-Yu Lin, and Eric C. Lee sued Alex and Serena Wang for fraud related to the sale of Baskin-Robbins stores. The Lees believed they purchased full ownership, including franchises and leases, but Serena Wang held these rights and failed to disclose her inability to transfer them. Serena made misrepresentations, extracted additional payments, and eventually caused the stores' closure by refusing to assign the leases. The court found sufficient evidence of fraud against Serena Wang but reversed the judgment against Alex Wang due to insufficient evidence. The original damages award of $205,000 was deemed factually insufficient, leading to a partial reversal and a remand for a new trial on damages against Serena Wang.

FraudBusiness SaleMisrepresentationFranchise AgreementDetrimental RelianceDamagesFactual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyContract DisputeIce Cream King Inc.
References
6
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

Wang v. New York State Department of Health

Donna L.N. Wang, a health care surveyor for the New York State Department of Health (DOH) and a U.S. Army Reserve member, sued DOH under USERRA and Military Law § 242, alleging a hostile work environment and discrimination upon returning from active military duty in 2008. She claimed increased caseload, undesirable assignments, limited vacation, and harassment, leading to a workers' compensation claim for anxiety, stress, and depression, which was upheld in 2010. DOH moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss several claims, arguing USERRA and Military Law § 242 did not cover hostile work environments or specific denied benefits. The court ruled that a hostile work environment claim is actionable under both USERRA and Military Law § 242 but dismissed Wang's claims regarding denied vacation and mileage reimbursement. The court denied dismissal of claims related to denied weekend 'on-call' income due to insufficient evidence from DOH, and claims regarding termination were dismissed as Wang remained employed. Wang's cross-motion for partial summary judgment based on collateral estoppel from the Workers' Compensation Board's decision was denied, as the legal standards and issues were not identical.

Employment DiscriminationMilitary Service DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentUSERRAMilitary Law § 242Summary Judgment MotionCollateral EstoppelWorkers' Compensation ClaimWorkplace HarassmentRetaliation
References
19
Case No. 01-23-00911-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2024

MD Anderson Cancer Center v. Bing Wang, M.D.

M.D. Anderson Cancer Center appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in an employment-discrimination lawsuit filed by Bing Wang, M.D. Wang alleged discrimination and retaliation after M.D. Anderson decided not to renew his faculty appointment. M.D. Anderson argued that Wang failed to timely exhaust administrative remedies by not filing a discrimination charge within 180 days of being informed of the nonrenewal. The appellate court agreed with M.D. Anderson, holding that the 180-day deadline started from the initial nonrenewal letter, not the conclusion of the internal appeal process. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's order and dismissed Wang's lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationSovereign ImmunityAdministrative RemediesTimelinessJurisdictional Prerequisite180-day DeadlineUnequivocal NoticeNonrenewal of EmploymentFaculty Appointment
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wang v. Phoenix Satellite Television US, Inc.

Plaintiff Lihuan Wang, an unpaid intern, sued Phoenix Satellite Television US, Inc. for employment discrimination under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. She alleged hostile work environment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and retaliation by bureau chief Zhengzhu Liu, and a failure to hire her due to discriminatory animus. Phoenix moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Court granted Phoenix's motion to dismiss Ms. Wang's hostile work environment claim, ruling that as an unpaid intern, she does not qualify as an 'employee' under the NYCHRL. However, the Court denied Phoenix's motion to dismiss Ms. Wang's remaining failure to hire claims, finding she plausibly alleged an informal application process for unposted vacancies.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentFailure to HireUnpaid InternNYSHRLNYCHRLMotion to DismissEmployee DefinitionQuid Pro Quo
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simon Ramirez and Cynthia Ramirez v. Dr. Jose Carreras

Simon Ramirez sustained a lower back injury while working, leading to a spinal fusion. K-Mart's worker's compensation carrier hired Dr. Jose Carreras to conduct a range-of-motion examination for disability rating. Simon and Cynthia Ramirez alleged Dr. Carreras caused further injury by forcefully bending Simon during the examination. The trial court directed a verdict on assault and battery but presented the common law negligence claim to the jury, which found no negligence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's verdict. It also ruled that the Texas Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act was not applicable due to the absence of a physician-patient relationship between Dr. Carreras and Simon Ramirez, reaffirming its prior decision on this matter as the law of the case.

NegligenceMedical ExaminationDuty Not To InjureWorker's CompensationPhysician-Patient RelationshipCommon Law NegligenceDirected VerdictAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceMedical Malpractice Act Inapplicability
References
5
Case No. 14-18-00274-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2020

Dr. Louis Patino, D.C. Dr. Stephen Wilson, M.D. And Dr. Gary Craighead, D.C. v. Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers' Compensation Commissioner Cassandra J. Brown and Dr. Donald Patrick, in Their Official and Individual Capacities State Office of Administrative Hearings, Texas Chief Administrative Law Judge Cathleen Parsley in Her Official Capacity Tommy Broyles, in His Official Capacity The State of Texas And the Attorney General of the State of Texas

Three doctors, Patino, Wilson, and Craighead, appealed the dismissal of their claims against the Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers’ Compensation and other state entities. The doctors were excluded from the state's workers' compensation approved doctor list between 2004 and 2007, leading to administrative penalties and a subsequent lawsuit. The trial court dismissed their claims for lack of jurisdiction, asserting immunity. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims challenging final agency orders due to unexhausted administrative remedies and collateral attack immunity. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the doctors' constitutional challenges to the Workers’ Compensation Act and ultra vires claims against the Commissioner, concluding these claims were properly pleaded and not barred by sovereign immunity.

Physician ExclusionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsConstitutional ChallengeDue Process RightsProfessional LicensingGovernment RegulationTexas Labor Code
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 2,743 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