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. 12-15-00014-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2015

East Texas Medical Center D/B/A East Texas Medical Center Emergency Medical Services v. Jody Delaune Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Crystal Delaune, and as Next Friend of D. D., D. D. and D. A. D., Minors

The appellant, East Texas Medical Center (ETMC), appeals a judgment finding it negligent for failing to train its EMS providers. The core issue revolves around whether ETMC adequately trained its employees on patient restraint protocols in a behavioral emergency, which allegedly led to the death of Crystal Delaune. ETMC argues that there is legally insufficient evidence to establish proximate cause because the EMS providers were previously found not negligent. Additionally, ETMC contends the appellee's expert testimony on the standard of care and breach was conclusory and based on improper inference-stacking. The appellant seeks a reversal of the verdict and a take-nothing judgment.

Negligent TrainingProximate CauseLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceStandard of CareEmergency Medical ServicesAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentEmployee MisconductMedical Negligence DefenseExpert Witness Testimony
References
51
Case No. 1:11-CV-330
Regular Panel Decision

Hamilton County Emergency Communications District v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, LLC

The case concerns multiple Emergency Communications Districts (ECDs) in Tennessee, led by Hamilton County ECD, suing BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC (d/b/a AT&T Tennessee) for allegedly under-billing, under-collecting, and under-remitting 911 emergency service charges. The plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Tennessee False Claims Act, the Emergency Communications District Law (ECD Law), breach of fiduciary duty, various misrepresentation claims (fraudulent, negligent, and concealment), and common law negligence, also seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss, specifically dismissing claims related to the ECD Law (Count II) and negligence/negligence per se (Count VII). However, it allowed the False Claims Act, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, and declaratory/injunctive relief claims to proceed. The court also denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, deeming it premature.

911 Emergency ServicesTelecommunicationsTennessee False Claims ActEmergency Communications District LawBreach of Fiduciary DutyFraudulent MisrepresentationFraudulent ConcealmentNegligent MisrepresentationDeclaratory JudgmentPermanent Injunction
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mocic v. Sumner County Emergency Medical Services

Kimberly Mocic, an EMT, sued Sumner County Emergency Medical Services (SCEMS) for pregnancy and sex discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Mocic alleged a hostile work environment due to comments about her pregnancy and uniform, refusal of light duty work, and retaliation for filing an EEOC charge. The Court granted summary judgment for SCEMS on Mocic's uniform policy and light duty sex discrimination claims, finding she failed to establish an adverse employment action for the uniform policy and could not identify similarly situated male employees for the light duty claim. However, the Court denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment and retaliation claims, concluding that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding the gender basis and severity of harassment, and the adequacy of SCEMS's investigation and motivation for Mocic's termination.

Pregnancy DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIITennessee Human Rights ActSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationWorkplace HarassmentUniform PolicyLight Duty Work
References
36
Case No. 11-10-00306-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2012

CareFlite v. Rural Hill Emergency Medical Services, Inc.

CareFlite initiated a lawsuit seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Rural Hill Emergency Medical Services, Inc. to disclose information under the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA). Rural Hill counterclaimed, requesting a declaratory judgment that it was not a governmental body subject to the TPIA. The trial court granted Rural Hill's motion for summary judgment and denied CareFlite's. On appeal, CareFlite challenged this ruling, arguing that Rural Hill was supported by public funds through non-arms-length contracts and provided services traditionally offered by governmental bodies. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the contractual relationships between Rural Hill and the cities constituted arms-length transactions, thereby exempting Rural Hill from the TPIA's "governmental body" definition. The court also upheld the propriety of Rural Hill's declaratory judgment counterclaim.

Texas Public Information ActGovernmental BodyPublic FundsArms-length TransactionDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmergency Medical ServicesNonprofit CorporationContract Law
References
21
Case No. 09-03-051 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2003

Magnolia Bend Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. v. John J. McDonnell and Montgomery County Emergency Services District No. 5

The Magnolia Bend Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. (Fire Department) sued Montgomery County Emergency Services District No. 5 (the District) and John McDonnell, alleging improper transfer of property and breach of fiduciary duty. The District counterclaimed, asserting the original deed placing title in the Fire Department's name was constitutionally void and seeking a resulting trust. The trial court sided with the District, finding the deed void and imposing a resulting trust, and ruled against the Fire Department's claims. The Fire Department appealed, raising issues regarding McDonnell's fiduciary duty, the voidness of the deed, and the imposition of a resulting trust. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the trial court's findings.

Warranty DeedAssignment of LeaseBreach of Fiduciary DutyResulting TrustConstitutional LawTexas ConstitutionProperty OwnershipPublic FundsVolunteer Fire DepartmentEmergency Services District
References
12
Case No. 09-06-399 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2007

Cypress Creek Emergency Medical Services, Inc. v. Steven Cosby and Kristen Lee Cosby, Individually and A/N/F of Brndyn Cosby and Peyton Cosby

Cypress Creek Emergency Medical Services, Inc. appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a lawsuit filed by the Cosbys for injuries sustained by Steven Cosby from an explosive device detonated by a Cypress Creek employee, Eugene H. Williams, Jr. Cypress Creek asserted governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act, arguing it was a governmental unit and the employee was not acting within the scope of employment. The Cosbys argued Cypress Creek was not a governmental unit due to its advanced tactical team performing law enforcement duties affecting its tax-exempt status. The appellate court determined Cypress Creek was a governmental unit and that the Cosbys failed to establish a waiver of immunity because the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment. The trial court's order was reversed, and the Cosbys' claims against Cypress Creek were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Governmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActScope of EmploymentEmergency Medical ServicesPlea to the JurisdictionTax-Exempt StatusAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryExplosive DeviceAdvanced Tactical Team
References
11
Case No. 13-15-00024-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2015

Maria Zamarripa, as Temporary Guardian of the Estates of R. F. R. and R. J. R., Minors, and Olga Flores, as Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Yolanda Iris Flores v. Bay Area Health Care Group, Ltd. D/B/A Corpus Christi Medical Center, Hidalgo County EMS, and Hidalgo County Emergency Medical Service Foundation

This case involves an appeal by Maria Zamarripa and Olga Flores (Appellants) against Bay Area Health Care Group, Hidalgo County EMS, and Hidalgo County Emergency Medical Service Foundation (Appellees). The Appellants are challenging the trial court's orders that granted the Appellees' motions to dismiss. The core of the appeal centers on the qualifications of Nurse Spears as an expert witness and the sufficiency of expert reports regarding the standard of care, its breach, and causation in a medical malpractice claim involving Yolanda Iris Flores's injuries and death from placenta accreta and pre-term labor. Appellants argue that Nurse Spears is qualified, the expert reports adequately connect CCMC's alleged breach of care to the injuries, and alternatively, they are entitled to amend the reports. They pray for the reversal of the trial court's dismissal orders and a remand for further proceedings.

Medical MalpracticePlacenta AccretaPre-term LaborMedical NegligenceStandard of CareCausationExpert Witness QualificationsHospital LiabilityEmergency Medical Services (EMS)Wrongful Death
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tesillo v. Emergency Physician Associates, Inc.

Manuel Tesillo sued Emergency Physician Associates, Inc. (EPA) for medical malpractice, alleging vicarious liability for the negligence of Dr. William C. Shepherd, an emergency physician at Schuyler Hospital. EPA moved for summary judgment, arguing Dr. Shepherd was an independent contractor. The court found material issues of fact regarding the extent of EPA's control over Dr. Shepherd and its managerial obligations to the Emergency Department, which could establish an employer-employee relationship despite contractual terms. Consequently, the court denied EPA's motion for summary judgment, indicating that the determination of Dr. Shepherd's employment status requires further discovery and possibly a trial.

Medical MalpracticeVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorAgency by EstoppelSummary JudgmentPhysician NegligenceEmergency DepartmentControl TestMaterial Issues of Fact
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gooshaw v. Wing

A disabled adult, relying on SSI and workers' compensation, relocated his mobile home to an undeveloped plot in Cortland County after eviction, lacking essential utilities. Faced with building code violations, he sought emergency assistance from the Cortland County Department of Social Services (DSS) for property improvements. DSS denied his application, recommending alternative housing, a decision affirmed by the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, which reasoned that his needs were foreseeable and not a sudden catastrophe. The court upheld this denial, confirming that the requested capital improvements fell outside the scope of emergency assistance for adults (EAA), which is intended for unforeseen events. It was concluded that the application was correctly assessed under emergency safety net assistance, which permits considering cost-effective alternatives, and the determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Emergency AssistanceDisabled AdultSupplemental Security IncomeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMobile HomeBuilding Code ViolationsCapital ImprovementsSocial Services LawForeseeabilityCatastrophic Emergency
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 422 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