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. M2011-00914-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2012

Rick Earl v. Dr. Raquel Hatter, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Human Services

Married couple Rick Earl and Wanda Earl sought judicial review of a Department of Human Services decision denying their Medicaid eligibility under the “Pickle Amendment” to the Social Security Act. The Chancery Court for Davidson County affirmed this decision. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville also affirmed the judgment of the Chancery Court, adopting its opinion as its own. The court found that while Mr. Earl met some criteria for Pickle Amendment consideration, the couple's household income still exceeded the individual benefit rate for Medicaid eligibility. Mrs. Earl was deemed ineligible as she was not receiving OASDI benefits at the time.

MedicaidPickle AmendmentSocial Security ActSSIOASDIEligibilityJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationGovernment Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fort Worth Independent School District v. Ricks

Mary Ricks, a teacher, sustained a knee injury at work in 2004. The Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers’ Compensation found it a compensable injury, a decision upheld by the Appeals Panel. The Fort Worth Independent School District appealed to the district court, which granted Ricks' summary judgment. The District then appealed this decision, arguing Ricks' injury was not compensable under the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act because it lacked a sufficient connection to her employment, comparing it to 'merely walking.' The appellate court, however, distinguished the case from a prior ruling and affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Ricks was engaged in her duties when injured.

Workers' CompensationCompensable InjuryCourse and Scope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Labor LawKnee InjurySchool TeacherPersonal Comfort DoctrineCausation
References
9
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. 2017-03-0447
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2018

Muncy, Rick v. Premium Distributors, Inc.

This case involves Rick O. Muncy, an employee of Premium Distributors, Inc., who experienced bilateral elbow and low back pain while unloading ice cream on July 14, 2016. He sought evaluation for his back pain from his authorized treating physician, Dr. Gerald Russell, but Premium Distributors refused, citing Dr. Russell's prior assessment that his current back symptoms were not work-related. The employer relied on a medical questionnaire from Dr. Russell, who had last seen Mr. Muncy two years prior. The Court questioned Dr. Russell's knowledge of Mr. Muncy's current complaints and found that Mr. Muncy presented sufficient evidence to warrant a return visit. The Court ordered Premium Distributors to provide Mr. Muncy with a return visit to Dr. Russell for evaluation and treatment of any work-related back injury.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsBack PainElbow PainTreating PhysicianCausation OpinionBurden of ProofTennesseeMedical Evaluation
References
2
Case No. 08-07-00201-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2009

Fort Worth Independent School District, Self-Insured v. Mary E. Ricks

Mary E. Ricks, a school teacher, suffered a right knee injury in November 2004 while preparing for class, diagnosed as an acutely torn anterior cruciate ligament and menisci, requiring multiple surgeries. The Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers' Compensation and its Appeals Panel determined the injury was compensable. The Fort Worth Independent School District appealed this administrative decision to the district court, which granted summary judgment in favor of Ricks. The District then appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that Ricks' injury was not compensable under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act because there was no connection between the knee injury and her employment, and she would have confronted the risks of merely walking irrespective of her employment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, concluding that Ricks was engaged in activities within the course and scope of her employment when the injury occurred and that the District failed to disprove her claim as a matter of law.

Workers' Compensation ActCompensable InjurySummary Judgment AppealCourse and Scope of EmploymentKnee InjurySchool TeacherAppellate Court DecisionTexas Labor CodeAffirmed JudgmentWorkplace Injury
References
11
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. 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 2,766 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