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

In re Kim HH.

Kim HH., born in 1983, was living with her mother and stepfather in September 1995 when a complaint was filed with the State Central Registry for Child Abuse and Maltreatment due to statements she made about her home life and treatment. A neglect proceeding was commenced, and Family Court found that respondents (mother and stepfather) subjected Kim to excessive corporal punishment and verbal abuse, constituting neglect. Kim was placed in petitioner's custody. Respondents appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding sufficient evidence of parental misconduct and harm to the child, including physical injury, fear, and enhanced self-esteem after removal from the household. The court deferred to Family Court's credibility findings regarding Kim's testimony of abuse.

NeglectChild AbuseCorporal PunishmentParental MisconductChild WelfareFamily Court ActCredibilityAppellate ReviewChild CustodyPhysical Abuse
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kim K.

The court addressed the Law Guardian's motion to prevent the 13-year-old child, Kim K., from testifying in a fact-finding hearing, citing her fragile emotional state. The respondent grandmother and the Department of Social Services presented conflicting positions regarding the necessity of Kim's testimony for corroborating out-of-court statements. Acknowledging its dual mandate to protect the child and determine neglect, the court denied the outright prevention of testimony. Instead, it ordered an in camera interview with Kim, detailing a procedure for counsel to submit questions and for the court to conduct the session, deciding on the sworn status of her testimony. The court further ruled that such in camera testimony, conducted under its prescribed procedure, could independently serve as sufficient evidence to support a finding of neglect.

Child protective proceedingChild witnessIn camera testimonyEmotional fragilityFact-finding hearingCorroboration of statementsFamily Court ActLaw GuardianDue processHearsay evidence
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 1984

In re Kim F.

The Family Court, New York County, issued a final order of disposition adjudicating 15-year-old Kim F. a juvenile delinquent for acts constituting arson in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree. This adjudication followed a guilty plea entered in Rockland County Family Court concerning an incident where Kim F. intentionally started a fire at a mental health center. The appellate court reversed this order, vacated the guilty plea, and remanded the case to the Rockland County Family Court for further proceedings. The reversal was based on several procedural errors, including the failure to notify Kim F.'s parents, inadequate advisement of her rights to remain silent and counsel, and the lack of an admission of intentional damage, which is a required element of the crimes charged. The court emphasized the necessity for both the minor and a parent to understand and waive such fundamental rights before a guilty plea can be accepted.

Juvenile DelinquencyArson Second DegreeCriminal Mischief Fourth DegreeGuilty PleaParental NotificationRight to CounselRight to Remain SilentDue ProcessVacated PleaRemand
References
6
Case No. 01-05-00636-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2007

Okjin Kim v. Santos Nunes

Santos D. Nunez sued Ok Jin Kim for injuries sustained while working at Kim's place of business, Elite Auto Sales. The trial court found Kim negligent for failing to provide a safe working environment and awarded Nunez $25,100 in damages. Kim appealed the judgment, challenging the findings of negligence, the burden of proof, and the damages award. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, noting that Kim's counsel failed to provide a reporter's record to support the challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. Furthermore, the appellate court sanctioned Kim's counsel, Annie P. Briscoe, for filing a frivolous appeal and ordered her to pay Nunez $4,000 in attorney's fees.

NegligencePersonal InjuryFrivolous AppealAttorney SanctionsSufficiency of EvidenceReporter's RecordAppellate ProcedureDamages AwardSafe Working EnvironmentWorkers' Compensation Non-subscriber
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nguyen v. Kim

Dee Ann and Minh Nguyen sued Dr. Poong Young Kim for medical malpractice and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) following dilation and curettage procedures performed on Mrs. Nguyen. The trial court dismissed their claims with prejudice due to the Nguyens' failure to timely file an expert medical report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act. On appeal, the Nguyens challenged the dismissal of their DTPA claims, which the appellate court found were essentially negligence claims and thus barred by the Medical Liability Act. They also contested the procedural aspect of Dr. Kim's dismissal request, which the court deemed sufficient. Finally, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a grace period for filing the report, concluding that the Nguyens' non-compliance was a result of conscious indifference, not accident or mistake, leading to the affirmation of the entire judgment.

Medical MalpracticeTexas Medical Liability ActDTPAExpert ReportTimelinessDismissal with PrejudiceInformed ConsentNegligenceConscious IndifferenceAccident or Mistake
References
21
Case No. W2018-00762-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2019

Heun Kim v. State of Tennessee

Plaintiffs Heun Kim and Joung Kim brought a negligence suit against the State of Tennessee after their six-year-old son fell from a fifth-floor balcony at a state-owned inn. The Kims alleged the State was negligent in allowing their son access to an unoccupied room and maintaining non-compliant balcony railings. The Tennessee Claims Commissioner dismissed the case, finding the Kims failed to prove proximate cause. However, the Court of Appeals found the Commissioner's legal conclusions deficient, as they only addressed one of the plaintiffs' negligence claims, and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further consideration.

NegligenceProximate CauseForeseeabilityPremises LiabilityState LiabilityBuilding Code ViolationChild InjuryBalcony FallVacated JudgmentRemand
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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 2,805 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