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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. Cornerstone Medical Associates, P.C.

Dr. Larry Donald Howard, a medical director for Cornerstone Medical Associates, sustained injuries in an automobile accident while traveling from his home to a nursing home for work. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to the employer, finding the injuries were not sustained in the course of employment, as travel to and from work typically falls outside this scope. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed this decision, concluding that Dr. Howard's travel furthered his employer's business and thus his injuries were compensable. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court disagreed with the Panel's recommendation, affirming the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court ruled that Dr. Howard's travel did not meet the criteria for exceptions to the 'going and coming' rule, such as the 'special errand' or 'traveling employee' exceptions, and therefore his injuries were not compensable.

Workers' CompensationAutomobile AccidentCourse of EmploymentGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Errand RuleTraveling Employee ExceptionSummary JudgmentCompensabilityMedical DirectorOff-premises Injury
References
18
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. E2015-00908-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2016

Jason Lamar Howard v. Cynthia Teresa Wallin Howard

The Father, Jason Lamar Howard, appealed the trial court's modification of a permanent parenting plan, child support, and its refusal to hold the Mother, Cynthia Teresa Wallin Howard, in contempt. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision regarding criminal contempt. However, it vacated and remanded the issues concerning the parenting plan and civil contempt due to insufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law by the trial court. The appellate court found that the Father had adequate notice of the Mother's intent to seek an increase in parenting time. The case is remanded for the trial court to provide a complete parenting plan with sufficient findings and conclusions for both the parenting plan and the civil contempt petition.

Post-divorceParenting plan modificationChild supportContempt of courtDue processFindings of factConclusions of lawAppellate reviewRemandTennessee law
References
15
Case No. E2000-01659-SC-WCM-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2001

Larry Howard, M.D. v. Cornerstone Medical Associates, P.C.

Dr. Larry Donald Howard, a medical director for Cornerstone Medical Associates, P.C., sustained injuries in an automobile accident while commuting from his home to a nursing home for work. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to the employer, ruling that the injuries were not compensable because they did not occur within the course of employment. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel subsequently reversed this decision, deeming the injuries compensable. However, the Supreme Court of Tennessee disagreed with the Panel’s recommendation. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Dr. Howard’s injury fell under the general 'going and coming' rule for non-compensability of injuries during travel to and from work, and found no applicable exceptions.

Workers' CompensationAutomobile AccidentCourse of EmploymentGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Errand RuleTraveling Employee ExceptionSummary JudgmentCompensabilityMedical DirectorEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. 2022-03-0560
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2024

Howard, Benjamin v. Centurion

Benjamin Howard, a dentist employed by Centurion, filed a claim after falling and striking his head on February 1, 2022, while walking into work. He underwent surgeries for bilateral intracranial subdural hematomas and rehabilitation. Centurion denied the claim, citing Dr. Howard's failure to disclose an expert witness and his inconsistent testimony regarding a new blood pressure medication with lightheadedness as a side effect. The Court, referencing Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 41.02, granted Centurion's motion to dismiss. It found Dr. Howard did not provide expert medical opinion to prove his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment, a requirement under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102. Consequently, his request for benefits was denied, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Medical CausationExpert Witness DisclosureMotion to DismissTennessee Civil ProcedureSubdural HematomaEmployment InjuryPreponderance of EvidenceBlood Pressure Medication Side EffectsOccupational RehabilitationDenial of Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. Uselton

Clarence Howard, an inmate at Marion County jail, sought workers' compensation after injuring his back while performing work at the county landfill. The Chancellor ruled that Howard, as a convict, could not form a contract of employment with Marion County and thus was not an employee under workers' compensation laws. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which cited established legal precedents that inmates performing work during their imprisonment are generally not considered employees for workers' compensation purposes, as they cannot enter into a true contract of hire involving remuneration. The Court found no evidence of an agreement for Howard to be compensated by Marion County for his services.

Inmate EmploymentPrisoner RightsWorkers' Compensation EligibilityContract of HireEmployee StatusMarion County LawTennessee Supreme CourtDUI ConvictionLandfill InjuryRemuneration Requirement
References
6
Case No. 03A01-9811-CV-00374
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 1999

Howard v. Howard

The father appealed the trial court's order setting child support, finding him in contempt for unpaid medical bills and late support, and awarding attorney's fees to the mother. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, including its refusal to deduct a business loss from the father's income due to insufficient proof of reasonable expenses. The court also upheld the upward deviation in child support based on the father's lack of visitation. Additionally, the finding of contempt and the award of attorney's fees to the mother were affirmed. The case was affirmed and remanded.

Child SupportContempt of CourtAttorney's FeesIncome CalculationBusiness ExpensesUpward DeviationVisitation RightsAppellate ReviewMarital DissolutionParental Obligations
References
5
Case No. 866 F.Supp.2d 196
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2011

Howard v. MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Wendell Howard, an African-American locomotive engineer trainee, sued his former employer, MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad, for racial discrimination and harassment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, following his termination from a training program. Howard alleged discriminatory treatment by his instructors regarding test answers and derogatory remarks, and that his termination for leaving his worksite without proper authorization and insubordination was pretextual. He also claimed other non-African-American trainees were not disciplined similarly. The court granted summary judgment in favor of MTA Metro-North, finding that Howard failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that the employer's stated non-discriminatory reasons for termination were a pretext for racial discrimination. Subsequently, Howard filed a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), citing alleged mistakes, fraud by the defendants, and newly discovered evidence concerning other trainees. The court denied this motion, concluding that Howard's arguments were either rearguments of prior points, lacked clear and convincing evidence of fraud, or the "new evidence" was either available during discovery or not sufficiently convincing to warrant relief.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Summary JudgmentPro Se LitigantMotion to Vacate JudgmentRule 60(b)Pretext for DiscriminationLocomotive Engineer Training Program
References
66
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,873 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