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. 03-18-00345-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2019

Dr. Robert Coolbaugh, D.C. v. Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers' Compensation and Commissioner Ryan Brannan, in His Official Capacity

This case involves an appeal from the district court of Travis County, which sustained a plea to the jurisdiction and affirmed an order of the Commissioner of Workers’ Compensation. Dr. Robert Coolbaugh, D.C., appealed a $10,000 administrative penalty imposed by Commissioner Ryan Brannan for failure to comply with Division orders regarding a medical-fee dispute and a refund order. The appellate court found that the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the initial refund order due to late filing. The court also affirmed the Commissioner's Penalty Order, concluding that it was amply supported by substantial evidence, as Coolbaugh had indisputably failed to comply with orders for production and proof of payment.

Administrative LawPlea to the JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation PenaltyRefund OrderUltra Vires ActSovereign ImmunityJudicial ReviewSubstantial Evidence ReviewAdministrative Penalty FactorsCompliance Orders
References
7
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. 127943/02; 103953/03
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. City of New York

District Council 37 (DC-37) brought two Article 78 proceedings (Roberts I and Roberts II) against the City of New York and its Department of Education, challenging the layoff of over 300 provisional civil service employees. DC-37 alleged violations of the Layoff Manual, improper retention of Work Employment Program (WEP) employees, unauthorized contracting out of services, and discriminatory separation of provisional employees who had passed civil service exams. The court found that the Layoff Manual did not create enforceable rights for employees. It also determined that claims regarding WEP workers and contracting out lacked sufficient legal grounds or required different remedies, characterizing these as managerial decisions. Consequently, the court dismissed both petitions, granting the City's cross-motions.

Civil Service LayoffsProvisional EmployeesArticle 78 ProceedingsUnion DisputesBudgetary ConstraintsGovernment Workforce ReductionWEP ProgramAnti-Displacement ProvisionsContracting OutPublic Sector Employment
References
7
Case No. 04-17-00160-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Robert B. James, DDS, Inc. Robert B. James, DDS, Individually Jean James, Individually And Alexis Mei Pyles, Individually v. Cassandra J. Elkins, DDS

Dr. Elkins sued her former employer and related individuals for defamation, business disparagement, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and conspiracy, alleging false statements about her financial misconduct. The defendants sought dismissal under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), arguing their communications were protected free speech. The trial court denied these motions. This concurring and dissenting opinion argues that the TCPA applies to Dr. Elkins's claims and that she failed to present sufficient evidence for the elements of actual malice and outrageous conduct for her claims. Therefore, the dissenting judge would reverse the trial court's order in its entirety, dismiss Dr. Elkins's claims, and remand for a determination of attorneys' fees and costs. The opinion also finds that the appellate court lacks jurisdiction over Dr. Elkins's motions for discovery and continuance.

Texas LawDefamationBusiness DisparagementIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressCivil ConspiracyTCPAAnti-SLAPPQualified PrivilegeActual MaliceEmployment Dispute
References
46
Case No. 2-01-159-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2005

Robert Morrell and Donna Morrell, Individually, AND Mary Angeline Finke, M.D., Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates of Arlington, AND Arlington Memorial Hospital Foundation v. Mary Angeline Finke, M.D., Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates of Arlington, Arlington Memorial Hospital Foundation, Inc. D/B/A Arlington Memorial Hospital, Rose Fenton, R.N.C., Sandy Stephens, R.N., and Marianne Walker, R.N., AND Robert Morrell

Robert and Donna Morrell, individually and as next friends for their daughter Madeline, sued Dr. Finke, her employer, nurses, and a hospital for medical malpractice following Madeline's birth, alleging permanent neurological injuries due to negligence during labor and delivery. A jury awarded damages, but the trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on the Morrells' mental anguish and loss of consortium claims. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the JNOV for the Morrells' mental anguish and loss of consortium claims. The court found legally and factually sufficient evidence for the jury's negligence and causation findings against Dr. Finke and the nurses. However, it modified the judgment to impose several liability on Nurse Rose Fenton and reversed the award of past medical expenses against Nurses Fenton, Stephens, and Walker, deeming those claims barred by the statute of limitations.

Medical MalpracticeBirth InjuryCerebral PalsyHypoxic-Ischemic EncephalopathyForceps DeliveryObstetric NegligenceNursing NegligenceStatute of LimitationsJoint and Several LiabilityExpert Witness Testimony
References
59
Case No. 14-14-01021-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2014

in Re Robert S. Hoffman and Law Office of Robert S. Hoffman PLLC

This document is a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Robert S. Hoffman and Law Office of Robert S. Hoffman PLLC. The petitioners seek to overturn a trial court order that compelled the production of their net worth information. The underlying case is a legal malpractice lawsuit brought by Rachel Brown against her former divorce attorneys, including Hoffman, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and seeking exemplary damages. The petitioners argue that the net worth discovery is premature and not sufficiently justified by the pleadings, especially given the bifurcation of trials for exemplary damages under Texas law. The trial court, presided over by Judge Al Bennett in the 61st District Court of Harris County, granted the motion to compel, ordering production by January 15, 2015, with a scope limited to the total amount of assets, liabilities, and the method of calculation. The petitioners contend that this order is an abuse of discretion and that an appeal would be an inadequate remedy.

Legal MalpracticeFiduciary DutyExemplary DamagesNet Worth DiscoveryWrit of MandamusBifurcated TrialTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureConfidentialityAttorney Fees
References
0
Case No. 13-09-00198-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2010

Robert Sutherland, Jesus De La Garza, and Southern Customs Paint and Body v. Robert Keith Spencer

This case is an appeal from the denial of a motion for new trial after a default judgment was entered against Robert Sutherland, Jesse Garza, and Southern Customs Paint and Body (appellants) in favor of Robert Keith Spencer (appellee). The appellants argued that the default judgment was void due to improper service and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion for new trial, contending they satisfied the Craddock test. The court addressed the misnomer issue regarding service on Jesse Garza and Southern Customs, finding that the correct parties were served and not misled. Furthermore, the court concluded that the appellants failed to meet the first prong of the Craddock test, as their failure to answer was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, thus affirming the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialService of ProcessMisnomerCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. Healey

Karin M. Roberts and Marjorie Roberts sued attorney James Sean Healey and his firm for negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations. The suit stemmed from Healey's failure to secure a protective order for Karin against her estranged husband, Daniel Charles Kennedy, who subsequently killed their two children and wounded Marjorie Roberts. The trial court granted summary judgment for Healey on all claims. On appeal, the court affirmed summary judgment for Karin's negligence, gross negligence, and DTPA claims, and for Marjorie's negligence and gross negligence claims, holding that Healey's failure to obtain a protective order was too attenuated from Kennedy's criminal acts to establish legal causation. However, the court reversed and remanded Karin's breach of contract and breach of warranty claims, and Marjorie's DTPA, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and bystander damages claims, finding that Healey's motion for summary judgment did not adequately address these specific grounds.

Attorney MalpracticeLegal NegligenceCausationSummary Judgment AppealDeceptive Trade Practices ActBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyAttorney-Client RelationshipBystander DamagesProtective Orders
References
21
Case No. 01-19-00335-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2021

Alice Marie Gandy v. Robert Williamson, Estate of Jimmy Glenn Williamson, Jimmy Williamson, P.C., Williamson & Rusnak, Cyndi Rusnak, and Cyndi Rusnak, PLLC

Appellants, 135 individuals, challenged the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of appellees, including Robert Williamson and several law firms. Appellants' lawsuit alleged civil barratry, civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and breach of fiduciary duty, stemming from an alleged illicit scheme to solicit clients for Deepwater Horizon oil spill claims. The scheme involved lawyers Jimmy Williamson, Cyndi Rusnak, and Michael Pohl paying non-lawyers to recruit potential clients using a

Barratry SchemeDeepwater Horizon Oil Spill LitigationStatute of Limitations DefenseCivil Conspiracy ClaimsAiding and AbettingBreach of Fiduciary DutyAttorney MisconductImproper Client SolicitationLegal EthicsSummary Judgment Appeal
References
64
Showing 1-10 of 3,839 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