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. 06-13-00123-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2014

in the Matter of the Marriage of Lucas Woods and Jessica Woods and in the Interest of L.K.L.W. and S.B.L.W., Children

Jessica Woods appealed a divorce decree, arguing the trial court erred in denying her motion for a new trial after a default judgment was entered against her. She failed to respond to the divorce petition, believing all custody issues were resolved by agreement with Lucas Woods, who had told her a response was unnecessary. The trial court, without Jessica's notice, granted Lucas's petition, awarding him the right to designate the children's primary residence and ordering Jessica to pay child support, altering their prior agreement. The appellate court applied the Craddock elements, finding Jessica's failure to answer was not intentional, she presented a meritorious defense regarding the children's best interest, and granting a new trial would not injure Lucas. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment regarding conservatorship and child support and remanded the case for a new trial on those specific issues.

DivorceChild CustodyDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialAppellate ReviewCraddock ElementsAbuse of DiscretionMeritorious DefenseConservatorshipChild Support
References
16
Case No. E2007-00816-SC-WCM-WC
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2008

Clarence Trosper v. Armstrong Wood Products, Inc. - Dissenting

Clarence Trosper sought workers\' compensation benefits from Armstrong Wood Products, Inc., alleging his pre-existing osteoarthritis was permanently worsened by work activities in 1997-1998, leading to bilateral thumb surgeries in 2004 and 2005. The trial court initially awarded him 40% vocational disability based on Dr. William E. Kennedy\'s expert testimony. However, the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed this, finding Dr. Kennedy\'s opinion speculative due to a six-year gap in symptoms and lack of medical documentation. This document presents a dissenting opinion by Justice William C. Koch, Jr., who concurs with the Appeals Panel, arguing that Trosper failed to prove his work, rather than natural disease progression, caused the disability. Despite this dissent, the Supreme Court\'s majority decision reversed the Appeals Panel, entitling Mr. Trosper to benefits.

Workers' CompensationOsteoarthritisPre-existing ConditionCausationMedical Expert TestimonyDissenting OpinionBurden of ProofJoint InjuryDisability BenefitsAppellate Review
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 1990

Woods v. Dador

The plaintiffs, Burton Woods, an employee of Associated Universities, Inc. (AUI) at Brookhaven National Laboratories, and his co-plaintiffs, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The initial order granted summary judgment to defendants AUI and Dr. Emanuel Dador, an AUI employee, dismissing a medical malpractice complaint. Woods had been treated by Dr. Dador at the Lab's occupational health clinic after falling ill on the job, allegedly suffering a heart attack due to Dr. Dador's delayed diagnosis. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) as the exclusive remedy. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that when an employer provides medical services exclusively to its employees, treatment received as a consequence of employment falls within the scope of the Workers' Compensation Law, barring a separate medical malpractice action.

medical malpracticeworkers' compensation lawexclusive remedyemployer liabilityoccupational healthsummary judgmentappellate reviewemployee clinicSuffolk Countydiagnosis error
References
4
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2022

Wood v. Baker Bros. Excavating

Clifford Wood, a concrete laborer, sustained injuries after falling approximately three feet from a bridge footing at a work site. He initiated a lawsuit against Baker Brothers Excavating (KER), the general contractor, and Brinnier and Larios, P.C., an engineering firm, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Wood moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. However, the Supreme Court denied his motion, determining that while Wood met his initial burden, KER had raised triable issues of fact concerning the availability and usage of safety equipment and Wood's specific task at the time of the accident. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that factual disputes prevented summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against KER.

Construction accidentFall from heightLabor LawSummary judgmentTriable issues of factWorksite safetyAppellate DivisionGeneral contractorEngineering firmPlaintiff's motion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Telephone Employees Organization, Local 1100, Communications Workers of America v. Woods

This case concerns a plaintiff union, Telephone Employees Organization, Local 1100, Communications Workers of America, attempting to convert a disciplinary financial sanction of $4,939.20 into a judgment against defendant John Woods. The sanction was imposed for Woods crossing a picket line during a strike, violating the union's constitution. Woods defended by claiming he was not a member of the union at the time. The court first determined it had jurisdiction over the nonmembership defense, rejecting the union's preemption argument. Subsequently, the court found that the plaintiff union failed to demonstrate Woods was formally admitted to membership in Local 1100 as required by its constitution and bylaws, lacking proof of an application or initiation fee payment. Consequently, as a nonmember, Woods was not bound by the union's rules prohibiting picket line crossing, rendering the fine unenforceable. The court dismissed the union's complaint and the defendant's counterclaim.

Union Disciplinary ActionPicket Line ViolationUnion Membership DisputeNLRA PreemptionState Court JurisdictionUnion ConstitutionContract EnforcementLabor LawUnion FinesResignation from Union
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woods v. State University of New York

Norman Woods, an employee of SUNY and a member of a bargaining unit, was placed on probation in 2013 following an arbitration and subsequently terminated in 2014 due to a negative performance evaluation. Woods and his union sought to compel arbitration for the 2014 termination or to annul the termination. The Supreme Court initially erred by converting the proceeding to an application to confirm the 2013 arbitration award and remitting the matter for clarification, as the arbitrator's authority was limited to the issues presented at that time. The court also found that petitioners failed to provide sufficient proof of bad faith or improper motivation for Woods' termination, which was justified by poor work performance. The judgment is reversed, and the petition dismissed.

Arbitration DisputePublic Employee TerminationProbationary EmploymentBad Faith TerminationPerformance EvaluationCollective BargainingJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Appellate Court DecisionRemittal
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eastern Texas Electric Co. v. Woods

E. Woods, an employee of Eastern Texas Electric Company, sustained severe personal injuries, including burns and a hernia, while working on electric lines in Beaumont, Texas, in May 1919. He sued the company, alleging negligence and arguing that it was subject to the Workmen’s Compensation Act for its lighting operations, despite also operating electric railways which were exempt. The court found that the company's electric lighting and power business was not exempt from the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The jury concluded the company was negligent in leaving severed, high-voltage wires connected, which was the proximate cause of Woods' injuries. The judgment of $3,300 in favor of E. Woods was affirmed on appeal.

Workers' Compensation ActEmployer NegligencePersonal Injury LawsuitElectric Utility SafetyCommon Carrier ExemptionStatutory ConstructionDual Business EntitiesAssumption of Risk DefenseContributory Negligence DefenseFellow Servant Doctrine
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,891 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