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
Nov 26, 2025

Matter of Jack V. (Jack U.)

This case concerns the termination of a father's (Jack U.) parental rights due to permanent neglect of his twin sons (Jack V. and another child). The children were removed shortly after birth in 2016 and remained in foster care for nearly their entire lives. The Broome County Department of Social Services initiated proceedings, alleging the incarcerated father failed to plan for his children's future despite the agency's diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship. Family Court (Levine, J.) granted the petition, terminating parental rights and freeing the children for adoption. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, concluding that the agency met its burden of proof regarding diligent efforts and the father's failure to offer a feasible plan.

Parental rightsChild neglectIncarcerationFoster care placementTermination of parental rightsFamily lawAppellate reviewDiligent effortsService planBest interests of the child
References
22
Case No. 06-02-00011-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2002

Betty Manasco, as Workers' Compensation Beneficiary of the Estate of Jack Manasco v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania

Betty Manasco, as the workers' compensation beneficiary of Jack Manasco's estate, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. The case concerned whether a head injury sustained by Jack Manasco in the course of his employment caused his subsequent malignant brain tumor, which led to his death. Manasco contested the trial court's decision to exclude the testimony of her expert witness, Dr. Richard Hamer, a neurologist, and the subsequent granting of summary judgment. The appellate court reviewed the exclusion of expert testimony under an abuse of discretion standard, considering the reliability of scientific evidence and the Zülch/Manuelidis criteria for causation. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the medical literature did not establish a causal link through epidemiological or other studies, thereby deeming the exclusion of Dr. Hamer's testimony within the zone of reasonableness.

Workers' CompensationCausationExpert WitnessSummary JudgmentBrain TumorHead InjuryMedical EvidenceEpidemiologyReliability of EvidenceAbuse of Discretion
References
10
Case No. 2016-07-0772
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2017

Jacks, Bonnie v. Camden Healthcare/Northpoint Senior Services, LLC

Bonnie Jacks, an employee of Northpoint, sustained a left shoulder injury in 2015. She requested an expedited hearing for additional medical benefits and approval of physician referrals to orthopedic and pain management specialists, as well as payment of outstanding medical bills. The employer, Northpoint, failed to provide a panel of physicians as required by law, instead offering Dr. Berry and later accepting a referral to Dr. Chandler. The Court found Ms. Jacks entitled to a panel of physicians for an orthopedic evaluation and ordered Northpoint to approve Dr. Berry’s referral to Tennessee Orthopedic Alliance. Additionally, Northpoint was ordered to pay Dr. Berry's outstanding bills totaling $340.00. The Court denied Ms. Jacks' counsel's request for attorney's fees but referred the case to the Penalty Unit for consideration of a penalty against Northpoint for failing to timely provide a panel of physicians.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingPhysician PanelOrthopedic ReferralPain ManagementAttorney's Fees DeniedPenalty Unit ReferralRotator Cuff TearShoulder Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jack T.

This case involves an appeal concerning a mentally incompetent juvenile, Jack T., who faced multiple delinquency petitions. After being found incompetent and dangerous, Family Court Judges remanded him to the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling that Family Court could not commit a mentally retarded juvenile under CPL article 730 and required adherence to Mental Hygiene Law procedures. Following remand, a new hearing assessed Jack T.'s competency and need for involuntary care. Medical examiners concluded Jack T. remained incompetent to stand trial but was no longer a danger to himself or the community and did not require involuntary commitment. Judge Gibbell, presiding, highlighted a legislative oversight, concluding that without certification under the Mental Hygiene Law or the ability to use CPL 730.50, the Family Court's hands are tied, rendering it unable to act in such cases, and strongly urged legislative reform.

Juvenile DelinquencyMental IncompetenceFamily CourtHabeas CorpusCPL Article 730Mental Hygiene LawDue ProcessInvoluntary CommitmentLegislative ReformJudicial Discretion
References
9
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

Jack in the Box, Inc. v. Skiles

Wade Skiles, a tractor-trailer driver, injured his knees jumping over a broken lift gate on his employer's truck, Jack in the Box, Inc. He sued for negligence after the company, a non-workers' compensation subscriber, failed to warn him of the danger. The trial court granted summary judgment for Jack in the Box, which was then reversed by the Fifth Court of Appeals. However, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the appellate court's decision, ruling that Jack in the Box owed no duty to warn Skiles of an obvious danger, as the risks associated with using a ladder to climb over a lift gate were commonly known. Consequently, the Supreme Court rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of the employer.

NegligenceEmployer LiabilityDuty to WarnObvious DangerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Non-SubscriberVoluntary ActTexas Supreme CourtTrucking Industry
References
5
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 2,898 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