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. 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. 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. 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. 14-09-01092-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2011

Patrick B. Alexander v. Josephine Alexander

Patrick B. Alexander appealed a post-answer default judgment of divorce, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial and the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting property division, spousal maintenance, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion for new trial, concluding Patrick failed to prove his absence was unintentional or not due to conscious indifference under the Craddock test. However, the court found Josephine Alexander presented insufficient evidence for the property division, spousal maintenance, and attorney's fees. Consequently, these specific portions of the divorce decree were reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The remainder of the trial court's judgment was affirmed, and Josephine's request for sanctions against Patrick's attorney was denied.

DivorceDefault JudgmentNew TrialProperty DivisionSpousal MaintenanceAttorney's FeesLegal SufficiencyCraddock TestAbuse of DiscretionRule 11 Agreement
References
15
Case No. 01-12-00227-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2014

Lani K. White and Charles White v. DR & PA Deliverance, Ltd., F/K/A Deliverance-PAR Services, Ltd.

Lani K. White and Charles White appealed a summary judgment in favor of DR & PA Deliverance, Ltd. (Deliverance). The Whites sued Deliverance alleging negligence after a gas leak from an uncapped line, installed by Deliverance's contractor Patrick Rusk, caused an explosion in their home. Deliverance contended it was not vicariously liable as Rusk was an independent contractor. The trial court granted summary judgment for Deliverance. On appeal, the Whites argued that Rusk's independent contractor agreement was modified by an agreement between Deliverance and MSS, and that extrinsic evidence showed Deliverance controlled Rusk's work. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the summary-judgment evidence failed to raise a fact issue regarding Rusk's independent contractor status, applying the Limestone factors to determine the nature of the employment relationship.

Summary JudgmentIndependent Contractor StatusVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorNegligenceAppellate ReviewContract LawRight to Control TestMaster-Servant RelationshipTexas Court of Appeals
References
33
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. E2013-02444-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2014

Phillip Dean Patrick v. Nelson Global Products, Inc.

Phillip Dean Patrick, a former employee of Nelson Global Products, Inc., filed a retaliatory discharge action alleging he was unlawfully terminated after a co-worker filed a workers' compensation claim. Patrick claimed that his co-worker's filing was a substantial factor in his discharge. The trial court granted the employer's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the complaint failed to allege a well-defined public policy violation or that Patrick's exercise of a protected right was a substantial factor in his termination, specifically noting that the retaliatory discharge action does not extend to bystanders or witnesses of a co-worker's injury.

Retaliatory DischargeAt-will EmploymentWorkers' Compensation ClaimMotion to DismissPublic Policy ExceptionAppellate ReviewCo-worker InjuryBystander TerminationLegal SufficiencyTennessee Court of Appeals
References
11
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
Case No. 03-12-00711-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2014

Dr. Eric A. VanderWerff, D.C. v. Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners

Dr. Eric A. VanderWerff, D.C. appealed a trial court's judgment granting a plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing his lawsuit against the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners. The Board had previously issued an order finding Dr. VanderWerff violated the Chiropractic Act by engaging in grossly unprofessional conduct and assessed a $1,500 penalty. His motion for rehearing to the Board was untimely, making the Board's order final. Dr. VanderWerff then filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the Board's interpretation and application of certain statutes and regulations. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that neither the Administrative Procedure Act nor the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act waived the Board's sovereign immunity, and that the claims did not present a justiciable controversy or fall under the collateral-attack exception.

Appellate LawAdministrative LawSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionDeclaratory Judgment ActInjunctive ReliefChiropractic ActProfessional MisconductContested CaseAdministrative Remedies
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 2,908 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