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. 03-96-00624-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 1997

Rhonda Cramer McClure v. Dr. Henry Landis and Interim Physicians, Inc.

Rhonda Cramer McClure appealed the dismissal of her medical-malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Henry Landis and Interim Physicians, Inc. The trial court dismissed her case with prejudice because she failed to provide a required expert report within 180 days, as mandated by the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act. McClure's attorney contended that this omission was an accident or mistake, qualifying her for a 30-day grace period under the Act, and promptly provided the report upon realizing the error. The appellate court found that the trial judge abused its discretion by denying McClure's motion for a new trial, as the defendants did not sufficiently controvert the evidence presented by McClure regarding the accidental nature of the failure to file. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Medical MalpracticeExpert ReportMedical Liability and Insurance Improvement ActDismissal with PrejudiceMotion for New TrialAccident or MistakeConscious IndifferenceTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureTexas Rules of Civil EvidenceAbuse of Discretion
References
8
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. NO. 14-00-00976-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

Henry Dalehite, Individually and as Independent of Virginia Dalehite Estate, Ellen Dalehite Wedell, Anne Dalehit Slitter, Charles R. Dalehite, and Henry Dalehit, III v. Haring J. Nauta, M.D.

The Appellants, the Dalehites, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Appellee Dr. Haring J. Nauta. The case stemmed from a wrongful death suit after Virginia Dalehite's death following an operation by Dr. Nauta. The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB), initially a co-defendant, was dismissed due to governmental immunity. Dr. Nauta claimed immunity as a UTMB employee under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Dr. Nauta was an employee of UTMB based on his contractual agreement, salary, benefits, and role as chairman of neurosurgery. The argument that Dr. Nauta was an independent contractor because UTMB did not control medical details was rejected, upholding his entitlement to governmental immunity.

Governmental ImmunitySummary JudgmentEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorWrongful DeathMedical MalpracticeTexas Tort Claims ActAppellate ProcedureNeurosurgeon LiabilityUniversity System
References
17
Case No. W2008-02532-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2010

Samuel S. Haines v. Henry County Board of Education

This appeal concerns an auto accident where Samuel S. Haines (Plaintiff) was rear-ended by a school bus owned by the Henry County Board of Education (Defendant). The trial court initially found the Board of Education 90% at fault and awarded damages to Haines for injuries, pain, and lost earning capacity. On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding causation. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson reviewed the medical expert testimony, primarily from Dr. Gulish and Dr. Walker. The court noted that Dr. Gulish's opinion on causation was equivocal and heavily reliant on Haines's self-reported medical history, which was later revealed to be inaccurate concerning prior back problems. Dr. Walker's opinion was similarly flawed as it was based solely on Haines's inaccurate account. Concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the accident was the cause-in-fact of his injuries, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and entered judgment in favor of the defendant.

Automobile AccidentCausationMedical Expert TestimonyInaccurate Patient HistoryBack InjurySpinal Compression FracturesOsteopeniaPain ManagementNegligenceAppellate Reversal
References
22
Case No. 2018-07-0730
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2023

HENRY, HEATHER v. PERSONNELPLACEMENTS HOLDINGS, LLC

Heather Henry, an employee, sought an order for Personnel Placements to purchase a new car due to modifications required by her work injury. Her hands were crushed in 2017, leading to a permanent total disability settlement in 2019, with orthopedic surgeon Dr. Michael Dolan as her authorized physician. Dr. Dolan, following a driving evaluation by Norwood E. Tatman, ordered specific vehicle modifications for functional independence. Personnel Placements agreed to fund these modifications to an existing vehicle, but Ms. Henry refused to submit her F150 truck, claiming modifications would damage its security system without providing evidence. The Court found Ms. Henry failed to prove that Dr. Dolan's order required a new car purchase, interpreting his order as for modifications. Consequently, the Court denied Ms. Henry's request for a new car.

Vehicle ModificationMedical BenefitsPermanent Total DisabilityDriving RehabilitationOrthopedic InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawBurden of ProofMedical TestimonyCompensation OrderEmployer Obligation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry C. v. Faith A.

Henry C., an incarcerated father, petitioned for visitation rights with his two children, Henry C. Jr. and Kelly Ann. The respondent, Faith (the natural mother), did not oppose visitation but sought limitations. A Law Guardian was appointed for the children and subsequently filed a motion requesting Henry C. to provide handwriting samples. This request aimed to verify the authorship of certain documents, including a birthday card that questioned Henry C.'s paternity and another containing hostile messages purportedly from the children. Henry C.'s counsel opposed the motion, arguing against the CPLR's applicability and the probative value of the samples. The court, emphasizing the best interest of the child in visitation cases and the broad scope of discovery, granted the Law Guardian's request for the handwriting samples, deeming them highly probative for the visitation determination.

Visitation RightsIncarcerated ParentHandwriting AnalysisBest Interest of the ChildParental RightsDiscoveryCPLR 3101Child CustodyPaternity DisputeEvidence Admissibility
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry v. Henson

The case involves L. T. Henson and Mrs. Beryl Henson (appellees) suing T. W. Henry and Mrs. Mary Murphy Henry (appellants) for damages sustained by Mrs. Beryl Henson in an automobile accident. Mrs. Henson was riding in Mrs. Henry's car while traveling to a Women's Missionary Society conference, where both were delegates. The core legal issue is whether Mrs. Henson was a 'guest' under Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. Article 6701b, the Texas 'guest statute,' which limits liability for non-paying guests unless gross negligence is proven. The jury initially found Mrs. Henson was not a guest, leading to a judgment for appellees. Appellants contended that Mrs. Henson was a guest, and the court analyzed whether the mutual benefit of the trip removed her from 'guest' status. The court ultimately found that the benefits were not tangible enough to change her status, ruling that Mrs. Henson was indeed a guest. Therefore, the lower court's judgment for the appellees was reversed, and judgment was rendered for the appellants.

Automobile AccidentGuest StatuteVernon’s Ann.Civ.St. Article 6701bNegligenceGross NegligenceOrdinary NegligenceContributory NegligenceAssumption of RiskJoint EnterpriseMutual Benefit
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc.

Carol Ann Henry and James S. Henry appealed a summary judgment in favor of Dillard Department Store, Inc., and its adjuster, Pulaski Adjustment Company. Mrs. Henry sustained a back injury during employment in February 1994 and sued Dillard for alleged unreasonable denial or delay of workers’ compensation benefits, asserting claims for breach of good faith, Texas Insurance Code violations, and breach of contract. Dillard initially denied coverage, leading to delayed testing and surgery for Mrs. Henry's cauda equina diagnosis. The key legal question was whether the Henrys needed to exhaust administrative remedies with the Texas Workers Compensation Commission (TWCC) before bringing their bad faith suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that exhaustion of administrative remedies was required given no evidence of Dillard's misconduct causing an independent injury.

Workers' Compensation Benefits DenialAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionBad Faith Insurance ClaimSummary Judgment AppealTexas Insurance Code ViolationsBreach of Contract ClaimDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingSpinal Injury CaseCauda Equina DiagnosisWorkers' Compensation Act Litigation
References
14
Case No. 05-20-00994-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2022

Kenneth Henry v. Marc A. Notzon and Law Office of Marc A. Notzon, P.C.

Kenneth Henry sued Marc A. Notzon and his law office for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging that Notzon's undisclosed communications with Henry's employer, Time Warner Cable (TWC), led to Henry's termination. Henry, a TWC employee, was involved in a severe accident while driving a company truck. Notzon, who had a long-standing relationship with TWC, represented both Henry and TWC regarding the accident. The federal courts previously ruled that Henry's termination was due to his causing a severe, avoidable accident, not discrimination or retaliation. The current court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Notzon, applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel because the issue of causation for Henry's termination had already been litigated and decided in the federal lawsuit. The court also rejected Henry's claim for actual damages and fee forfeiture, noting that TWC's worker's compensation administrator paid Notzon's fees, not Henry.

Collateral EstoppelBreach of Fiduciary DutySummary JudgmentCausationWrongful TerminationDisability DiscriminationWorkers' Compensation RetaliationAttorney-Client PrivilegeFifth CircuitTexas Court of Appeals
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 2,901 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