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

K. R. Playa VI, S. De R.L. De C v. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company and Stewart Title Guaranty De Mexico, S.A. De C v.

This case involves a consolidated appeal over title insurance claims for properties in Mexico. Appellants Citigroup Global Markets Realty Group and K.R. Playa VI challenged a trial court's judgment favoring appellees Stewart Title Guaranty Company and Stewart Title Guaranty de Mexico. The dispute centered on whether an exclusion in the title insurance policies, related to K.R. Playa's knowledge of a Mexican expropriation decree affecting the properties, precluded coverage and influenced the damages award. The jury found K.R. Playa knew of the decree for ten properties and awarded zero damages for the remaining six. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings on K.R. Playa's knowledge and the zero damages, and addressing issues concerning expert testimony and state-law claims.

Title InsuranceReal Estate DisputeProperty ValuationBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingTexas Insurance CodeExpropriation DecreeMexican LawInternational PropertyAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ward v. Stewart

Plaintiffs Kevin A. Ward, Sr. and Pamela Ward filed a wrongful death action after their son was killed in a sprint car race by defendant Anthony Wayne Stewart. Stewart removed the suit to federal court and asserted an indemnification counterclaim based on two liability releases. Defendant moved for partial summary judgment, arguing negligence claims were barred by the Releases or by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. Plaintiffs opposed and cross-moved seeking dismissal of defendant's counterclaim for indemnification, arguing the Releases were inapplicable or unenforceable. A previous December 2017 Order invalidated the Releases and dismissed Stewart's counterclaim. Stewart then moved to certify certain portions of the December Order for interlocutory appeal or for partial final judgment, which the court denied. The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting immediate appeal concerning the releases or the assumption-of-risk defense, and no just reason for delay for partial final judgment, concluding that the motion for certification and/or entry of partial final judgment is denied.

Wrongful Death ActionSprint Car RacingLiability ReleasesAssumption of RiskInterlocutory AppealPartial Final JudgmentFederal Civil ProcedureNew York General Obligations LawNegligence ClaimsIndemnification Counterclaim
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stewart v. Littlefield

C. Paul Stewart, a maintenance person, filed a worker's compensation claim after being injured on the job. Subsequently, John C. Littlefield, an officer of Stewart's employer, Countryside Village Homeowners’ Association, eliminated Stewart's position. Stewart sued Littlefield, Countryside, and Logan Properties, Inc., alleging retaliatory discharge under former article 8307c of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes. Littlefield moved for summary judgment, arguing he was not Stewart's employer and thus not liable under the statute, which he contended applies only to employers. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Littlefield. This appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the term "person" in article 8307c refers exclusively to employers, thereby absolving Littlefield, who acted as an individual officer rather than Stewart's employer.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimEmployer-Employee RelationshipSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationTexas Labor CodeCorporate Officer LiabilityDiscriminationLegislative IntentWorkmen's Compensation Act
References
8
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. 01-11-01032-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2013

Stewart & Stevenson, LLC v. Brady Foret

Brady Foret sued Stewart & Stevenson, LLC for negligence after an oil drilling rig (Rig 65), which had been refurbished by Stewart & Stevenson, collapsed, causing Foret to fall over eighty feet and suffer severe injuries including orthopedic injuries and a traumatic brain injury. A jury found both Stewart & Stevenson (85%) and Key Energy Services, LLC (15%) negligent and awarded Foret substantial damages for past and future pain, mental anguish, physical impairment, and lost earning capacity. Stewart & Stevenson appealed, challenging the trial court's decision not to include Apache Corporation and Robert McLemore as responsible third parties in the jury charge, the excessiveness of the future damages awards, and the admission of late-filed discovery evidence. The First District Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence supported the jury's negligence and damage findings, and no abuse of discretion in the exclusion of third parties or admission of evidence.

NegligencePersonal InjuryOil Rig CollapseTraumatic Brain InjurySpinal Cord InjuryLost Earning CapacityMental AnguishPhysical ImpairmentJury VerdictDamages
References
62
Case No. 13-10-00554-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2012

Commerce & Industry Insurance Company v. Kimberly Ferguson-Stewart

This case addresses whether a death resulting from an overdose of prescribed pain medication for an on-the-job injury is compensable by worker's compensation. Bruce Mason Stewart was injured at work and prescribed hydrocodone. He later died from a hydrocodone overdose. His widow, Kimberly Ferguson-Stewart, sought death benefits, which were initially denied by the Division of Worker's Compensation. A jury later found Stewart's death compensable, attributing the overdose to disorientation and memory loss caused by medication side effects rather than intentional non-compliance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Stewart's death was not solely caused by his intentional or knowing failure to comply with his doctor's instructions.

Workers' CompensationOverdose DeathCompensable InjuryMedical TreatmentPhysician InstructionsCausationAccidental OverdoseHydrocodone ToxicityDisorientationMemory Loss
References
21
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. McReynolds

Stewart Title Guaranty Company initiated an action in the Chancery Court of Davidson County, seeking a refund for risk rate and retaliatory taxes levied by the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance. The chancellor dismissed the claim, ruling that the Tennessee Claims Commission held exclusive jurisdiction over tax refund cases. On appeal, Stewart Title challenged this decision, contending that relevant statutes did not confer jurisdiction to the commission for such claims and that the state constitution mandated review of tax assessments by constitutionally established courts. The appellate court affirmed the chancellor's judgment, interpreting the claims commission act to vest exclusive jurisdiction for all state tax recoveries, excluding those handled by the commissioner of revenue, with the Tennessee Claims Commission. Furthermore, the court systematically addressed and rejected Stewart Title's constitutional arguments concerning the act's scope, due process, separation of powers, and the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, solidifying the commission's role in these matters.

Tax RefundInsurance TaxJurisdictionClaims CommissionChancery CourtStatutory ConstructionConstitutional LawDue ProcessSeparation of PowersAppellate Jurisdiction
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 2,801 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