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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arnold v. INA of Texas

Olene Arnold appealed an adverse summary judgment granted in favor of INA of Texas regarding workers' compensation benefits. Arnold had an initial shoulder injury in July 1982, settled a claim with Travelers Insurance, and then experienced renewed problems in July 1983, filing a new claim against INA. INA denied coverage, asserting the new condition stemmed from the first injury. The Industrial Accident Board upheld Arnold's claim, but the trial court granted summary judgment for INA based on Dr. Snoots' deposition testimony. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, noting the appellant's burden to show error and the incomplete record before them.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentAppealMedical TestimonyPrior InjuryCausationInsurance CoverageTexas LawAffirmationBurden of Proof
References
3
Case No. 13-12-00619-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2012

in Re Daniel E. Arnold

Daniel E. Arnold filed a petition for writ of mandamus to quash the deposition of his accountant, Jim Spence, and to avoid the discovery of federal income tax returns and net worth. This case stems from a negligence and premises liability lawsuit filed by Gerardo Gonzalez, an injured employee of AW Produce, Inc., against Arnold and other entities. Gonzalez sought discovery of Arnold's financial information to establish ownership and control of the premises where the injury occurred, as well as for exemplary damages. The Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief in part, directing the trial court to withdraw its order requiring production of Arnold Realty's federal income tax returns and Arnold's historical net worth information. All other requested relief was denied.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeAccountant-Client PrivilegeFederal Income Tax ReturnsNet Worth DiscoveryPremises LiabilityNegligenceGross NegligenceRespondeat SuperiorCorporate Veil Piercing
References
30
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

Arnold v. Reliant Bank

The plaintiff, Julie A. Arnold, a former mortgage loan originator at Reliant Bank, filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination under Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act, along with a claim for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA. Arnold claimed she was discriminated against through withheld commissions, failure to assign business, exclusion from meetings, and termination, in addition to a hostile work environment. She also argued she was improperly classified as an exempt outside sales employee and denied overtime. The court denied Reliant Bank's motion for summary judgment on the gender discrimination claims due to direct evidence of discriminatory intent, but granted summary judgment to Reliant on the hostile work environment claim. Both parties' motions for summary judgment regarding the FLSA outside sales exemption were denied, citing genuine disputes of material fact about the extent of Arnold's off-site sales activities.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentFLSAOvertime WagesOutside Sales ExemptionMortgage Loan OriginatorDirect EvidencePrimary Duty Test
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Travelers Insurance Co. v. Arnold

William F. Arnold, claiming to be an employee of Shamrock Van Lines, filed a workers' compensation claim against Shamrock's insurer, The Travelers Insurance Company, after sustaining accidental injuries. A jury found Arnold was an employee and totally and permanently incapacitated. The insurer appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for both the employment status and the permanency of incapacity, and alleged jury misconduct. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Shamrock had the right to control the details of work for both Fleming and Arnold, establishing an employer-employee relationship, and that lay witness testimony was sufficient to support the jury's finding of permanent incapacity. It also found no probable injury from alleged jury misconduct.

Texas LawWorkmen's CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorRight of Control TestTotal Permanent DisabilityJury FindingsMedical EvidenceLay Witness TestimonyAppellate Procedure
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arnold v. Renken & Kuentz Transportation Co.

Donald L. Arnold, a truck driver, was injured while working for Renken & Kuentz Transportation Company and received workers' compensation benefits. He subsequently sued his employer for gross negligence, alleging failure to provide proper equipment and seeking punitive and emotional distress damages. The trial court granted the defendant's plea in bar and dismissed the suit, ruling that the workers' compensation statute provides an exclusive remedy for work-related injuries, except in cases of death due to gross negligence or intentional acts. Since Arnold did not die and failed to plead an intentional act, the court affirmed the dismissal. The appellate court further rejected Arnold's attempt to amend his pleadings to include an intentional tort claim after the trial had begun, deeming it too late, and affirmed the judgment.

Workers' CompensationGross NegligenceIntentional InjuryExclusive RemedyPleadings AmendmentPunitive DamagesEmotional DistressTexas LawPlea in BarAppellate Review
References
7
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 2,780 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