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. 09-06-180 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2007

in Re Commitment of Michael Marks

Michael Marks appealed a civil commitment order issued under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, after a jury found him to be a sexually violent predator. Marks challenged the trial court's exclusion of his expert witnesses, Dr. Jason Dunham and psychotherapist Sara Smith, citing improper disclosure and the failure to hold a gatekeeper hearing for the State's expert, Dr. Michael Arambula. He also alleged improper closing arguments by the State. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Marks failed to timely disclose expert testimony, did not properly request a gatekeeper hearing, and waived objections to the closing arguments.

Civil CommitmentSexually Violent Predator ActExpert Witness ExclusionDiscovery RulesGatekeeper HearingClosing ArgumentAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedureMental IllnessSchizoaffective Disorder
References
16
Case No. M2012-01227-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2013

William Michael Ray v. Southern Tennessee Medical Center, LLC

This medical malpractice action was appealed after a jury verdict favored the defendant doctor, Dr. Asher A. Turney, regarding his treatment of William Michael Ray for a myocardial infarction. The plaintiff, William Michael Ray, argued the trial court erred in allowing a medical expert witness, Dr. Andy Walker, to testify, citing issues with disclosure and the locality rule. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion by the trial court in permitting Dr. Walker's testimony, determining he met the required "modicum of familiarity" with the medical community under the locality rule. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the lower court's decisions.

medical malpracticeexpert witnesslocality ruleabuse of discretionstandard of careemergency medicinemyocardial infarctionappellate reviewevidence admissibilityprocedural error
References
11
Case No. 14-18-00062-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2019

Michael Lee Wyrick A/K/A Mike Wyrick and Gregory Michael Ruhnke A/K/A Greg Ruhnke v. Business Bank of Texas, N. A.

This case involves two individual guarantors, Michael Lee Wyrick and Gregory Michael Ruhnke, appealing a trial court's summary judgment that enforced their $3 million promissory note guaranty in favor of Business Bank of Texas, N.A., and dismissed their tort claims. The guarantors argued the trial court erred in granting summary judgment due to contract defenses like fraudulent inducement and mutual mistake, and affirmative counterclaims including fraud and tortious interference. The appellate court found the guarantors lacked standing for some counterclaims and failed to raise fact issues for others and their defenses. The court also reviewed a permanent anti-suit injunction issued by the trial court, concluding it was an abuse of discretion as the circumstances did not warrant such extraordinary relief. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the guaranties and counterclaims, but modified it to dissolve the anti-suit injunction.

Guaranty enforcementPromissory noteSummary judgment appealFraudulent inducementNegligent misrepresentationMutual mistakeEquitable estoppelTortious interferenceNegligence claimsGross negligence claims
References
76
Case No. 03-15-00416-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2015

Oak Mortgage Group, Inc. Michael H. Nasserfar Michael E. Task And Tycord R. Gosnay v. Ameripro Funding, Inc.

AmeriPro Funding, Inc. is a residential mortgage lender. Appellants Michael H. Nasserfar, Michael E. Task, and Tycord R. Gosnay, former employees, are accused of secretly transmitting confidential records to competitor Oak Mortgage Group, Inc. before resigning, and continuing to possess and use these records. This brief argues for the affirmance of a temporary injunction granted by the district court against the appellants for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and other torts. The injunction aims to prevent further use of confidential information and solicitation of specific customers, with evidence supporting imminent and irreparable harm to AmeriPro. The brief also addresses arguments regarding the temporary injunction's compliance with Rule 683, the definition of 'customers', and the return of confidential information.

Confidential Information MisappropriationTrade Secret TheftBreach of Fiduciary DutyNon-Solicitation ViolationsTemporary Injunction AppealEmployee PoachingUnfair CompetitionCustomer List ProtectionFinancial Data ProtectionContract Interference
References
71
Case No. 03-94-00497-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 1995

Lillian Minchey and D. C. Minchey v. Michael Defiel, D.D.S.

Appellants Lillian and D.C. Minchey appealed the trial court's dismissal of their dental malpractice suit against Dr. Michael Defiel for want of prosecution. The lawsuit, filed in 1989 for events dating back to 1973, saw minimal activity over 53 months due to the original attorney suspending it to pursue a worker's compensation claim and a subsequent delay after retaining new counsel. Dr. Defiel moved for dismissal in May 1994, which the court granted in June 1994. The appellate court reviewed the dismissal for abuse of discretion, considering factors like case activity, duration, and excuses for delay. Given the prolonged inactivity and the age of the underlying facts, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order.

Dismissal for Want of ProsecutionAbuse of DiscretionDental MalpracticeAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionCase ActivityLitigation DelayWorker's Compensation ClaimProcedural LawTexas Court of Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacK v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Plaintiff Michael Mack sued The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Dr. Scott Bergman for racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination under 42 U.S.C. sections 1981 and 1983, and New York Executive Law section 296. Mack, an African-American employee, alleged his supervisor, Iannacone, and Dr. Bergman subjected him to racial jokes, disparate treatment, and a hostile work environment. Mack was terminated after failing a drug test and refusing to provide a second urine sample, which he claimed was racially motivated. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing all claims, finding that Mack failed to demonstrate a municipal policy or custom for the Port Authority's liability and did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of wrongful termination or a racially hostile work environment. Additionally, state law claims were dismissed as New York anti-discrimination laws do not apply to the bi-state Port Authority.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Port AuthorityBi-State AgencyMunicipal LiabilityDrug Testing
References
59
Case No. 03-01-00649-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2002

Farmers Insurance Exchange Truck Insurance Exchange Fire Insurance Exchange Mid-Century Insurance Co. Mid-Century Insurance Co. of Texas Farmers New World Life Insurance Co. Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company Farmers Group, Inc. v. Michael Leonard and Michael Sawyer on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated

This case involves an interlocutory appeal by Farmers Insurance Exchange and several affiliated companies (collectively 'Farmers') challenging a trial court's order certifying a class action. The class action was brought by Michael Leonard and Michael Sawyer on behalf of themselves and other agents, alleging that Farmers improperly calculated and awarded bonuses under four different bonus contracts. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that California's substantive law was correctly applied based on the 'most significant relationship' test. The court also found that the class met the requirements for certification, including adequate representation, predominance of common issues, and superiority of a class action over individual lawsuits, thereby rejecting Farmers' arguments for decertification.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealContract DisputeBonus PaymentsChoice of LawRule 42 Texas Rules of Civil ProcedureAdequacy of RepresentationPredominance of Common IssuesSuperiority of Class ActionCalifornia Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Michael v. City of Dallas

Steven C. Michael, a white, disabled probationary employee, was discharged by the City of Dallas after a co-worker reported he made violent threats. Michael sued the City, alleging wrongful termination based on race and disability discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). The City moved for summary judgment, asserting it had a zero-tolerance policy for workplace violence and that Michael failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, including showing disparate treatment or that he was replaced by someone outside his protected class. The trial court granted summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that Michael failed to present evidence beyond subjective beliefs to support his claims of discrimination.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationWrongful DischargeSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActPrima Facie CaseDisparate TreatmentWorkplace ViolenceProbationary Employee
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 3,740 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