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

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. 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. 2-06-192-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2007

Jose D. Posada v. Anivar Sarvelio Romero and Envirotec Construction Services, Inc.

Jose D. Posada sued Anivar Sarvelio Romero and Envirotec Construction Services, Inc. for neck and back injuries sustained when a water hose he was using became entangled in Romero's trailer. Envirotec, a nonsubscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, was Posada's employer. Posada incurred over $17,000 in medical expenses. Prior to trial, Envirotec filed a counter-affidavit by Dr. William Mitchell, an orthopedic surgeon, challenging the necessity and reasonableness of much of Posada's medical treatment. The trial court excluded a significant portion of Posada's medical expenses based on this counter-affidavit. A jury subsequently awarded Posada $5,420.00, including lost wages and a portion of past medical expenses. Posada appealed, raising two issues regarding Dr. Mitchell's expert qualifications and the validity of a supplemental report attached to the counter-affidavit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Dr. Mitchell qualified and the report properly incorporated.

Personal InjuryNegligenceMedical ExpensesExpert WitnessCounter-affidavitCivil ProcedureTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeOrthopedic SurgeryChiropractic CareExcessive Treatment
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grocers Supply, Inc. and Jose Narciso Sanchez v. Jose Luis Cabello, Angel Cabello, and Ramiro Cabello

Grocers Supply, Inc. and Jose Narciso Sanchez appealed a jury award to Jose, Angel, and Ramiro Cabello following a collision between Grocers's tractor-trailer and the Cabellos' pickup trucks. The appellants argued federal law preempts lost-wage claims for undocumented workers and challenged the sufficiency of evidence for future medical and property damages. They also contested the trial court's failure to award litigation costs based on a settlement offer. The Cabellos cross-appealed for sanctions and judgment reformation. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding federal immigration law does not preempt state tort law regarding lost wages for undocumented aliens in this context, and rejecting other evidentiary and procedural challenges raised by Grocers.

Federal PreemptionImmigration Reform and Control ActLost WagesLoss of Earning CapacityUndocumented WorkersState Tort LawVehicular AccidentNegligenceJury AwardEvidentiary Sufficiency
References
67
Case No. 13-04-224-CV and 13-04-358-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2006

G. Xavier Montemayor and Franklin T. Graham, Jr. v. Jose Antonio Ortiz Fernandez, Jose Antonio Ortiz Celada, and Wife, Becky Ortiz

This case involves consolidated appeals concerning debt collection and alleged tortious conduct. Appellants, G. Xavier Montemayor and Franklin T. Graham, Jr., sought to satisfy a 1990 judgment debt against Jose Antonio Ortiz Fernandez and Jose Antonio Ortiz Celada by attempting to levy against Schor's, a business owned by Becky Ortiz. The trial court initially granted partial summary judgments determining the 1990 debt was contractual and Schor's was Ortiz's special community property, not subject to the debt. Ortiz also filed counterclaims for damages including abuse of process, malicious prosecution, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, for which a jury awarded her damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's summary judgments regarding the nature of the debt and the status of Schor's property. However, it reversed the judgment awarding damages to Ortiz, finding no evidence to support her counterclaims for tortious conduct, thus negating the basis for punitive and mental anguish damages.

Texas Court of AppealsConsolidated AppealsDeclaratory JudgmentEx Parte ReceivershipCommunity Property LawContractual DebtTort ClaimsAbuse of ProcessMalicious ProsecutionDefamation
References
76
Case No. M2018-02183-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2020

Jose Sifuentes, D/B/A Jose's Electric v. D.E.C., LLC

A subcontractor, Jose Sifuentes, sued general contractor D.E.C., LLC, for unpaid work on a bowling alley project. The trial court initially dismissed all claims, including breach of contract and quantum meruit, due to Sifuentes being an unlicensed contractor, citing Tennessee Code Annotated § 62-6-103(b). On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and promissory fraud claims. However, it reversed the dismissal of the quantum meruit claim, clarifying that Tennessee law limits an unlicensed contractor's recovery to actual documented expenses but does not abolish the common law remedy itself when dealing with another professional. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding the quantum meruit claim.

Subcontractor disputecontract lawquantum meruitpromissory fraudstatutory interpretationcontractor licensingTennessee appealssummary judgmentdamages limitationcivil procedure
References
29
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. 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 3,502 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