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. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Methodist Healthcare System of SA, Ltd, LLP D/B/A Northeast Methodist Hospital v. Thomas Dewey

This interlocutory appeal concerns whether Thomas Dewey's premises liability claim against Northeast Methodist Hospital required an expert report under the Texas Medical Liability Act. Dewey was injured when an electronic door at the hospital closed on him, fracturing his hip. The hospital moved to dismiss, contending Dewey's claim was a healthcare liability claim, but the trial court denied the motion. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Dewey's claim was a 'garden-variety slip and fall case' and not a healthcare liability claim, as it was untethered from healthcare and did not necessitate medical expert testimony to establish the standard of care.

Premises LiabilityHealthcare Liability ClaimTexas Medical Liability ActExpert ReportMotion to DismissHospital SafetyStandard of CareInterlocutory AppealStatutory ConstructionTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Porcelli v. PMA Associates

Claimant sought workers' compensation death benefits for her husband's death from respiratory failure, alleging it was an occupational disease from toxic chemical exposure during his 30+ years as a printer. A WCLJ initially awarded benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Board later precluded the claimant's medical expert's report and testimony due to untimely filing under 12 NYCRR 300.2 (d) (12). This preclusion led the Board to find no established causal relationship, closing the case without benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding adequate support for precluding the expert's evidence due to procedural non-compliance.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseDeath BenefitsMedical ExpertReport PreclusionTimely FilingProcedural RuleCausal RelationshipAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
6
Case No. 14-09-00938-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2010

Fatima Ibrahim, M.D. v. Lisa Gilbride and Pete Gilbride

This case is an interlocutory appeal where Dr. Fatima Ibrahim challenged the denial of her motion to dismiss health-care-liability claims filed by Lisa and Pete Gilbride. Dr. Ibrahim contended that the Gilbrides failed to timely serve their expert's curriculum vitae (CV) and that the expert report was insufficient regarding the standard of care, breach, and causation. The appellate court found that while the CV was considered adequately served as it was included in the report, the expert report itself was indeed insufficient. The expert, Dr. Donald W. Smith, failed to establish his qualifications to opine on seizure disorders and did not sufficiently explain the applicable standard of care, how Dr. Ibrahim breached it, or the causal link to Mrs. Gilbride's brain injuries. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case, allowing the trial court to consider granting a 30-day extension for the Gilbrides to cure these deficiencies in the expert report.

Interlocutory AppealHealth-care-liabilityMedical MalpracticeExpert WitnessExpert Report SufficiencyCurriculum VitaeStandard of CareCausationSeizure DisorderNeurologist Negligence
References
19
Case No. 03-05-00454-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2007

Cecelia Ledesma v. George L. Shashoua, M.D. Oakwood Women's Cenre, P.A. at Round Rock Joseph Eddings B. Johns, CRNA And Round Rock Medical Center

Cecelia Ledesma appealed the district court's dismissal of her health care liability claim against Bruce Johns, a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, for failing to provide timely and compliant expert reports. Ledesma alleged permanent injury to her left arm following surgery in 2001, attributing it to improper IV placement and arm positioning. The district court dismissed her claims after determining that the four expert reports she submitted were inadequate under section 74.351 of the civil practices and remedies code and denied her request for a 30-day extension. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding there was no abuse of discretion regarding the expert reports or the denial of an extension, and also rejected Ledesma's constitutional challenges to chapter 74. This decision emphasizes the strict requirements for expert reports in health care liability claims in Texas.

Health care liabilityMedical malpracticeExpert reportCivil procedureDismissalStandard of careCausationAppellate reviewDue processEqual protection
References
14
Case No. 15-25-00167-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Shannon Medical Center v. Michael Sickels and James Christopher Cole

Radiologists Michael Sickels and James Christopher Cole sued Shannon Medical Center, alleging the hospital failed to properly monitor, report, and restrict their exposure to radiation while they treated patients, leading to injuries including cancer and amputations. Shannon Medical Center, a licensed health care provider, moved to dismiss these claims under Section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, arguing that they constituted health care liability claims requiring a statutory expert report. Sickels and Cole denied their claims were health care liability claims, asserting they arose from violations of the Texas Radiation Control Act and Texas Administrative Code, that they were employees of Shannon Medical Center, and that they had satisfied the expert report requirement by providing voluminous medical records. The trial court denied Shannon Medical Center's motion to dismiss, prompting this appeal. Shannon Medical Center argues that the claims satisfy all elements of a health care liability claim, highlighting the substantial nexus to health care, the involvement of medical equipment, and the need for expert testimony. They also contend that Sickels and Cole are not employees of the hospital, but rather independent contractors employed by Shannon Clinic, and that the medical records provided do not meet Chapter 74's expert report requirements for standard of care, breach, and causation, nor was a curriculum vitae served. Shannon Medical Center seeks reversal of the trial court's denial, dismissal of the case with prejudice, and an award of statutory remedies.

Health Care Liability ClaimMedical MalpracticeExpert ReportRadiation ExposureHospital NegligenceTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 74Motion to DismissEmployment StatusIndependent ContractorRadiology
References
36
Case No. ADJ7859239, ADJ7859246
Regular
Mar 10, 2014

BELINDA BURTON vs. SAN LUIS OBISPO CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant seeks reconsideration of two decisions regarding permanent disability ratings, arguing she was denied the opportunity to rebut the defense's Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) expert report. The Board granted reconsideration, finding the applicant was deprived of due process by not being afforded adequate time to obtain a rebuttal report to the defense's late-disclosed DFEC expert report. The original decisions are rescinded, and the matters are returned for further proceedings, allowing both parties time to obtain rebuttal and response reports from their respective DFEC experts. Discovery will then be closed, and the parties can request trial.

Diminished Future Earning CapacityDFEC expert reportRebuttal reportDue processWCAB Rule 10507Mandatory Settlement ConferenceVocational expert evidencePermanent disability ratingReconsiderationFindings and Award
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NOWZARADAN v. Ryans

This interlocutory appeal addresses whether an expert report is required for a gross-negligence claim under the Texas Medical Liability Act. Dr. Younan Nowzaradan argued that Shirley H. Ryans's gross-negligence claim necessitated a separate expert report, treating it as a distinct cause of action from ordinary negligence. The court, however, determined that gross negligence is not a separate cause of action but rather a heightened degree of ordinary negligence, inextricably intertwined with it. Consequently, the court found that the existing expert report, sufficient for ordinary negligence, did not require a supplemental report specifically for gross negligence. Therefore, the trial court's denial of Dr. Nowzaradan's motion to dismiss was affirmed.

Gross NegligenceMedical MalpracticeExpert ReportTexas Medical Liability ActCivil Practice and Remedies CodeInterlocutory AppealStandard of CarePunitive DamagesAppellate ProcedureCause of Action
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Financial Insurance Co. of America

Yolanda and Francisco Flores, Jr. initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. J. Scott Smith, alleging negligence during spinal surgery and submitting an expert report. Subsequently, Financial Insurance Company of America and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association intervened, asserting a workers' compensation subrogation claim after paying benefits to Mr. Flores. Dr. Smith moved to dismiss the intervenors' claims, arguing their failure to file an independent expert report. The intervenors contended they could rely on the Floreses' previously filed report. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. This appellate court affirmed, ruling that a workers' compensation carrier asserting a subrogation claim can indeed rely on the injured employee's expert report, as both are considered a single claimant under the relevant statute, and the subrogation claim is derivative.

Medical MalpracticeHealth Care LiabilityExpert Report RequirementsWorkers' Compensation SubrogationInterlocutory AppealStatutory InterpretationClaimant DefinitionDerivative ClaimTexas Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sonbuchner v. Sonbuchner

Justice Saxe dissents in part from the majority's decision regarding a child custody determination, while agreeing with the remand for a new child support award. The dissent argues that the pro se plaintiff was fundamentally denied due process by not receiving sufficient access to an 84-page court-appointed psychologist's report on custody prior to trial. This lack of access severely hindered the plaintiff's ability to effectively cross-examine the expert. Justice Saxe advocates for a new custody trial before a different judge to rectify this procedural unfairness, citing recommendations from the New York State Matrimonial Commission on providing access to such reports for pro se litigants.

Child custodyChild supportPro se litigant rightsDue processExpert witness reportsForensic psychologyCross-examinationMatrimonial lawJudicial discretionNew York Family Law
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 7,420 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