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. 03-09-00159-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

Texas Department of Transportation// Texas Weekly Advocate and Dr. Jeffrey White v. Texas Weekly Advocate and Dr. Jeffrey White// Cross-Appellee, Texas Department of Transportation

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) amended its crash report form, removing a space for driver telephone numbers. Texas Weekly Advocate and Dr. Jeffrey White (Plaintiffs) sued TxDOT under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA), arguing that TxDOT failed to comply with proper rulemaking procedures. The trial court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs on their APA claim, enjoining TxDOT, but dismissed the UDJA claim and denied attorney's fees. On appeal, the court vacated the trial court's APA injunction and dismissed that part of the cause as moot, as TxDOT had subsequently completed the required rulemaking process. Additionally, the Plaintiffs' UDJA claim was deemed moot due to redundancy with the APA claim, and the appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of attorney's fees, finding no abuse of discretion as the UDJA claim did not substantially broaden the action already provided by the APA.

Administrative Procedure ActUniform Declaratory Judgments ActMootnessAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentInjunctive ReliefRulemaking ProceduresCrash Report FormTexas Department of TransportationAppellate Jurisdiction
References
10
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. W2012-00274-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2013

Gwendolyn Jeffrey v. City of Memphis

Gwendolyn Jeffrey, widow of firefighter Wendell Jeffrey, sought "Heart, Hypertension, and Lung" (HHL) benefits from the City of Memphis after her husband's death from cardiac arrhythmia. The City denied her claim, leading to an appeal before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ found that the City had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of causation between Jeffrey's employment and his cardiac condition, and Mrs. Jeffrey failed to prove causation by a preponderance of the evidence. The chancery court affirmed the ALJ's decision, acknowledging that it might have ruled differently but found no unlawful procedure, arbitrary conduct, or insubstantial evidence. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the chancery court's decision, agreeing that the City provided competent medical proof to rebut the presumption and that Mrs. Jeffrey did not prove a substantial causal connection.

Firefighter BenefitsCardiac ConditionStatutory PresumptionCausationAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ)Chancery Court AppealAppellate ReviewHHL ProgramMedical EvidencePreponderance of Evidence
References
6
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

Wade v. Vabnick-Wener

The plaintiff, Ella G. Alexander Wade, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Felice A. Vabnick-Wener in federal court, alleging negligence during her husband's heart surgery in 2002 led to his death. Dr. Vabnick sought a protective order to allow her attorneys, Domico Kyle, PLLC, to represent non-party physicians Dr. Jeffrey Williams and Dr. Anant Shah for depositions and trial testimony. Wade opposed, citing Tennessee's implied covenant of physician-patient confidentiality which prohibits ex parte communications with treating physicians. The court, applying Tennessee law, found that while state law is more stringent than HIPAA regarding such communications, the covenant does not apply to Dr. Williams as he did not render medical treatment to the patient. Furthermore, the court ruled that Dr. Shah has the right to choose his attorney, thus allowing Domico Kyle to represent both physicians, provided no ethical conflicts arise. Therefore, the court granted Dr. Vabnick's motion for a protective order.

Physician-Patient ConfidentialityEx Parte CommunicationsMedical MalpracticeProtective OrderHIPAA PreemptionDiversity JurisdictionChoice of LawWrongful DeathAttorney-Client PrivilegeTreating Physician
References
35
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. 07-21-00008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2021

Jeffrey J. Markey v. Kathryn L. Markey

Jeffrey J. Markey appealed a final divorce decree from Kathryn L. Markey, challenging the child support calculation and the division of community property due to unvalued income tax liabilities. The Court of Appeals, Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo, found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering Jeffrey's earning capacity and various income sources beyond just current earnings for child support. The court also held that it was not an abuse of discretion to divide the community estate without first calculating income tax liability, nor to disregard Jeffrey's estimates for tax liabilities. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

DivorceChild SupportProperty DivisionIncome Tax LiabilityEarning CapacityCommunity EstateAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Family LawMemorandum Opinion
References
11
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 2,902 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