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. 02-11-00228-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2012

Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance Company v. Cynthia Simpkins, Beneficiary of Roderick Simpkins

Roderick Simpkins, an employee of Coca-Cola, died after sustaining a skull fracture from a fall at work. His surviving spouse, Cynthia Simpkins, filed a workers' compensation claim which was denied by Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance Company. After an appeals panel affirmed a decision in favor of Simpkins, Ace Fire appealed to the district court, which upheld the jury's verdict. Ace Fire then appealed to the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, arguing that the evidence did not establish a causal connection between Simpkins's fall and his employment, and that there were errors in the jury charge regarding producing cause and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding legally sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Simpkins's death arose out of his employment and that any errors in the jury charge were harmless.

Workers' CompensationCompensable InjuryIdiopathic FallProducing CauseScope of EmploymentAttorney's FeesLegal SufficiencyExpert TestimonySkull FractureBlunt Force Trauma
References
25
Case No. 05-20-00644-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2022

Albert G. Hill, III v. Margaret Keliher, in Her Capacity as Personal Representative and Successor Independent of the Estate of Albert G. Hill, Jr., and Carol E. Irwin, in Her Capacity

This appeal concerns Albert G. Hill, III's (Hill III) claims for malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting, which were dismissed by the probate court under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). Hill III alleged his criminal indictment for false statements on a home equity loan was influenced by his father, Albert G. Hill, Jr., and others, acting with malice and without probable cause. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the TCPA applied to Hill III's claims. The court found Hill III failed to establish a prima facie case, specifically lacking clear and specific evidence that false information knowingly supplied by appellees was the "but for" cause of his prosecution or that appellees lacked probable cause. The dismissal of criminal charges on procedural grounds was not deemed evidence of unjustifiable prosecution or lack of probable cause.

Texas Citizens Participation ActTCPAMalicious ProsecutionCivil ConspiracyAiding and AbettingAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary RulingPrima Facie CaseProbable CauseFree Speech
References
15
Case No. 01-02-01007-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2004

Sheldon A. Etie v. Walsh & Albert Co., Inc

This case addresses the interpretation of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act regarding the scope of statutory employer/employee status and immunity from suit for subcontractors. The appellant, Sheldon A. Etie, was injured by an employee of Walsh & Albert Company, Ltd., a lower-tier subcontractor, while working on a construction site. Etie received workers' compensation benefits but also filed a negligence suit against Walsh & Albert. The central question was whether the general contractor's workers' compensation policy, which covered all subcontractors and their employees, extended immunity to lower-tier subcontractors. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the statutory employer/employee relationship and subsequent immunity from suit extend throughout all tiers of subcontractors when covered by a single workers' compensation insurance policy provided by the general contractor.

Workers' Compensation ImmunityStatutory Employer DoctrineSubcontractor CoverageExclusive Remedy ProvisionFellow Servant ImmunitySummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Labor Code InterpretationConstruction Site InjuryTiered Subcontractor LiabilityIndependent Contractor Status
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. ADJ15875626
Regular
Jun 30, 2025

Evyette Gaines vs. Riverside University Health System

Defendant sought reconsideration of the April 11, 2025 Findings, Award, and Orders (FA&O), where the WCJ found the reporting of PQME, Dr. Albert Simpkins, to be substantial medical evidence, with the exception of apportionment. Applicant, Evyette Gaines, was found to have sustained injury AOE/COE to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, and psyche, resulting in 38% permanent disability. Defendant contended that Dr. Simpkins' apportionment findings constituted substantial medical evidence and that the WCJ misapplied legal precedents. After considering the petition and the WCJ's report, the Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrdersQualified Medical EvaluatorPQMEAlbert SimpkinsApportionmentSubstantial Medical EvidenceAOE/COECervical Spine
References
12
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
Case No. E2008-02483-CCA-R9-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2010

State v. John Cote and Sarah Cote, In Re: Dr. Sandra Elkins

The State of Tennessee and Dr. Sandra Elkins appealed a trial court's discovery order, which granted John and Sarah Cote's request for Dr. Elkins's personal medical and employment records. The Cotes, accused in a minor child's death, sought these records related to Dr. Elkins, the medical examiner who performed the victim's autopsy, arguing their materiality to their defense. The appellate court, treating the appeal as a common law writ of certiorari, found that the Cotes failed to make a plausible showing that the requested privileged information was material and favorable to their defense, a necessary prerequisite for an in camera review. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order for in camera inspection and remanded the case, also explicitly ruling that records from the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners are absolutely protected from disclosure.

Criminal ProcedureDiscoveryIn Camera ReviewPrivileged InformationMedical RecordsMental Health RecordsEmployment RecordsMedical ExaminerDue ProcessCertiorari
References
49
Showing 1-10 of 2,845 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