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. 05-20-00352-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

Bryan Taylor and Melissa Taylor v. Baylor Scott & White Medical Center-Frisco

Bryan and Melissa Taylor appealed a trial court's judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Baylor Scott & White Medical Center-Frisco in a healthcare liability lawsuit. The Taylors alleged negligence related to spine surgery performed on Bryan Taylor by Dr. Stephen Courtney at Baylor. Their claims included failures in preventing unnecessary surgeries due to physician-owned distributorships (PODs), enforcing policies for medical device purchases, and physician retention. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in striking inadmissible hearsay evidence (Dr. Carmody's deposition) and concluding that the Taylors failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their negligence and gross negligence claims against Baylor.

Healthcare LiabilityMedical NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPhysician-Owned DistributorshipsPODsHearsay EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionStandard of CarePeer Review
References
41
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. 05-17-01221-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2018

the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Charles Wayne Taylor and Rosemary Taylor

On April 21, 2014, Charles Taylor underwent bladder surgery at a VA hospital, alleging medical malpractice by surgeons employed by The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UTSW). The Taylors initially filed suit in federal court, which was dismissed. After providing pre-suit notice, they filed suit in state court against "University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center/The University of Texas System," serving only UT System. After the statute of limitations expired, they amended their petition to name UTSW and served its president. UTSW filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting the claims were time-barred. The Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas reversed the trial court's denial of the plea, finding that the Taylors failed to properly sue or serve UTSW within the limitations period, and the doctrines of misnomer and misidentification did not apply. The court rendered judgment dismissing the Taylors' claims for want of jurisdiction.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityMisnomer DoctrineMisidentification DoctrineService of ProcessTexas Court of AppealsDismissal for Want of Jurisdiction
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Taylor

This case involves Liberty Mutual Insurance Company appealing a judgment awarding Laura E. Taylor workmen's compensation for total permanent disability. The appeal centers on two main points: the admissibility of Dr. Herbert Kresh's medical opinion, which was partly based on the patient's history, and the admissibility of witness Frances Toon's hearsay testimony regarding Taylor's statements about her injury. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Dr. Kresh's testimony was admissible because his opinion would remain the same based solely on hospital records and examination. Furthermore, Mrs. Toon's testimony was deemed admissible to rebut charges of prior fabrication by the defendant, as the defendant's cross-examination implied such fabrication.

Workmen's CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityMedical Opinion AdmissibilityHearsayPrior FabricationExamining PhysicianTreating PhysicianHospital RecordsBack InjuryRuptured Disc
References
12
Case No. 14-13-00731-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2015

Sabrina Taylor v. the Hartford Insurance of Midwest

This case involves Sabrina Taylor appealing a summary judgment granted in favor of The Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest by the trial court. The appeal stems from a judicial review of a workers' compensation appeals panel decision. Taylor challenged the trial court's decision to sustain a contest to her affidavit of indigence, its consideration of inadmissible evidence (Dr. Korivi's deposition), and its alleged failure to address her impairment rating. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling the indigence issue moot as Taylor received relief, finding no indication of improper evidence consideration, and concluding that Taylor's pleadings did not challenge the impairment rating.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentJudicial ReviewAppeals PanelImpairment RatingAffidavit of IndigenceAdmissible EvidenceTexas Labor CodeMaximum Medical ImprovementInjury Coverage
References
6
Case No. 2015-02-0088
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2015

Taylor, Brandon TEC Industrial

Brandon Taylor (Employee) filed a Request for Expedited Hearing on July 8, 2015, seeking medical benefits for a right knee injury sustained on March 10, 2015, while working for TEC Industrial (Employer). TEC Industrial initially provided on-site medical care but did not offer a panel of physicians until Mr. Taylor filed a Petition for Benefit Determination. Mr. Taylor subsequently treated with Dr. Sanjeev Kakkar, the panel-selected physician, who determined the work incident contributed less than 50% to the injury, citing chronic knee changes. Another physician, Dr. Jenkins, who performed surgery on Mr. Taylor's knee, later stated that the fall directly resulted in the injury. However, the Court found Dr. Jenkins' opinion insufficient to rebut the presumption of correctness given to Dr. Kakkar's assessment due to a lack of detailed explanation and specific statutory considerations. Consequently, the Court denied Mr. Taylor's request for additional medical benefits, concluding he had not presented sufficient evidence to likely prevail at a hearing on the merits.

Expedited HearingMedical BenefitsCausationPre-existing ConditionRight Knee InjuryPanel of PhysiciansEmployer ResponsibilityMedical EvidenceStatutory InterpretationRebuttable Presumption
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. United States

Plaintiffs George A. Taylor and Sally Taylor brought an action against the United States under the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) for personal injuries Mr. Taylor sustained on February 4, 1994. Mr. Taylor slipped on icy snow while entering the Cicero-Clay Post Office in Cicero, New York. The case was tried without a jury, commencing on November 16, 1998, in Syracuse, New York. Plaintiffs alleged negligence, claiming the defendant failed to maintain safe premises, but the defendant denied negligence and lack of notice. Applying New York state law, the court required proof that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous icy conditions. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the sidewalk's dangerous condition prior to the incident, as no complaints were made before Taylor's slip. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the plaintiffs did not establish negligence on the part of the defendant.

Federal Tort Claims ActFTCANegligenceSlip and FallIcy ConditionsPost OfficePremises LiabilityActual NoticeConstructive NoticeFederal Court
References
8
Case No. 14-02-00982-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2004

Catherine Taylor, Individually and as Next Friend of Charles Taylor, NCM v. American Fabritech, Inc., Mike Hicks, Sr., and LMS Rentals, Inc.

Catherine Taylor, individually and as next friend of Charles Taylor, NCM, sued American Fabritech, Inc., Mike Hicks, Sr., and LMS Rentals, Inc., for injuries Charles Taylor sustained when he fell through a skylight while working on a construction project. All parties appealed from a final judgment. The court addressed issues regarding expert testimony, jury view, jury argument, mention of insurance, and offsets. The court affirmed the admission of expert testimony, found the jury view not to be harmful error, and that jury argument and mention of insurance did not warrant a mistrial. The judgment was modified to remove an offset for governmental benefits and, as modified, affirmed.

Expert TestimonyJury ArgumentCollateral Source RuleOffsetsGovernmental BenefitsEmployee Benefit PlanConstruction AccidentFall from HeightSkylightPersonal Injury
References
27
Case No. 2022-08-0265
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2023

Taylor, Debbie v, The Kroger Co.

Ms. Taylor requested that The Kroger Co. pay for treatment from a headache specialist and associated penalties, arguing that she was still owed further medical treatment. Kroger contended it had fulfilled all its medical treatment obligations under law. The case involved various medical evaluations, including neurologists Dr. Alan Nadel and Dr. Mohammed Assaf, neuropsychologist Dr. Christopher Bassin, and psychiatrist Dr. Melvin Golden. The Court ultimately denied Ms. Taylor's request for an additional specialist. The Court found that Kroger had provided all injury-related treatment as required, that Dr. Assaf had not refused further treatment, and that the law did not mandate a third neurologist's opinion in this circumstance. Therefore, Ms. Taylor did not demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on her request at a hearing on the merits.

Post-traumatic headachesMedical benefits denialNeurology evaluationNeuropsychological evaluationPsychiatric evaluationWorkers' compensation appealExpedited hearingTreating physicianSecond opinion eligibilityMaximum Medical Improvement
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 3,036 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