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. 2020-06-0216
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2020

De Rosa, Debra v. I & MJ Gross Co.

Debra De Rosa, an employee of I & MJ Gross Co., injured her wrist and subsequently sought additional treatment with a new doctor. She contended that the carrier, Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., failed to offer a panel of physicians or inform her of her right to choose from a list of three doctors. However, I & MJ Gross Co. denied these allegations, asserting that it had twice fulfilled its statutory obligation to offer a physician panel. The Court found the employer's testimony credible regarding the panel offer and noted that Ms. De Rosa accepted treatment from Dr. John Weaver. Dr. Weaver ultimately placed her at maximum medical improvement and stated no further treatment was necessary, leading the Court to deny Ms. De Rosa’s request for additional medical care.

Workers' CompensationMedical TreatmentPhysician PanelCredibility DeterminationWrist InjuryMaximum Medical ImprovementStatutory ObligationEmployee RightsEmployer ResponsibilityMedical Benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2005

G.K. Alan Assoc., Inc. v. Lazzari

This case involves an action by G.K. Alan Assoc., Inc. (Alan) against Derval Lazzari (Lazzari) to enforce a consulting agreement. Lazzari asserts Alan was a "faithless agent" due to alleged insurance fraud against corporations in which Lazzari purchased stock, arguing this forfeits Alan's right to compensation under the consulting agreement. Alan counter-argues that the consulting agreement was part of the stock purchase price, making misconduct irrelevant, and that Lazzari was aware of the alleged fraud. The court examines the "faithless agent" rule, determining that forfeiture applies only to compensation for services rendered to the disloyal principal and is subject to apportionment if performance on other duties is untainted. The court found triable issues of fact, precluding summary judgment for Lazzari on his "faithless agent" defense. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order granting Lazzari's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was reversed, and the matter was remanded, while an earlier order granting Lazzari leave to amend his answer was affirmed.

Faithless Agent RuleAgency LawConsulting AgreementInsurance FraudSummary Judgment MotionBreach of LoyaltyContract EnforcementCorporate LawAppellate ReviewForfeiture of Compensation
References
45
Case No. 2-07-151-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2008

Gail Smith v. Dr. Alan Henson, D.C.

Gail Smith appealed a jury verdict against Dr. Alan Henson, D.C., concerning her negligence claim for alleged non-consensual cervical manipulation during treatment for work-related carpal tunnel syndrome and hip problems. Smith argued the trial court erred by excluding evidence related to workers' compensation and by making an improper comment on the evidence. The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Smith failed to preserve error on her complaints by not objecting to the trial court's instructions or comments during trial. A dissenting opinion by Justice Sue Walker argued that an objection to a trial court's ruling is not required to preserve error, stating that the appellate rules disavow the necessity of objecting to a trial court ruling.

NegligenceMedical MalpracticeChiropractic TreatmentWorkers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureError PreservationJury InstructionsImproper CommentCivil ProcedureTexas Law
References
5
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. 03-00-00559-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2002

Rainbow Group, Ltd. and Alan Sager/Josephine Johnson Joanne Barker Elizabeth Gonzalez Ramiro Estrada Cheryl Hiltner Emily Hebert Ava Lott Jennifer Washington Amy Spilecke Seantel Cockle Tammy Peterson Lisa Small And Julie Vargas v. Josephine Johnson Jennifer Washington And Seantel Cockle/Rainbow Group, Ltd. and Alan Sager

The Texas Court of Appeals heard an appeal by Supercuts (Rainbow Group, Ltd. and Alan Sager) against a district court judgment favoring hairstylists on a quantum meruit claim for unpaid wages. Supercuts challenged the quantum meruit finding, damages, statute of limitations, and attorney's fees. The hairstylists cross-appealed, seeking additional post-judgment interest and arguing breach of contract. The appellate court affirmed the quantum meruit judgment and damages, reformed the judgment to include post-judgment interest from May 22, 2000, but reversed and remanded the attorney's fees award for reconsideration due to the trial court's failure to segregate fees for interrelated claims. The hairstylists' breach of contract claim was not sustained.

Quantum MeruitUnpaid WagesFair Labor Standards ActStatute of LimitationsDamages CalculationAttorney's Fees SegregationPost-Judgment InterestBreach of ContractClass Action CertificationEquitable Recovery
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gross v. Nashville Gas Co.

Plaintiffs John M. Gross and Wayne Adair, employees of South Central Bell Telephone Company, sustained severe burns when a fire erupted in a manhole they were working in. They alleged the fire was caused by leaking natural gas from lines maintained by the defendant, Nashville Gas Company, claiming negligence and strict liability. The trial in Davidson County, Tennessee, in January 1979, resulted in a jury finding both parties negligent and a verdict in favor of Nashville Gas Company, leading to the dismissal of the case. Appellants appealed, raising issues regarding evidence admissibility, jury instructions on remote contributory negligence, strict liability, duty of care, gross negligence, punitive damages, and urging the judicial adoption of comparative negligence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in its rulings on evidence or jury instructions, and declined to judicially adopt comparative negligence, suggesting it is a legislative matter. The court found that the evidence did not support a finding of gross negligence or strict liability against the gas company.

Personal InjuryNegligenceContributory NegligenceComparative NegligenceGas LeakManhole FireWorkplace AccidentEvidence AdmissibilityJury InstructionsStrict Liability
References
26
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 3,231 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