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. 01-17-00146-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2019

Michael Fallon, M.D. v. the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson as Officer for the Public Information for the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Michael Fallon, M.D. sued the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA) after they denied his request for certain information, claiming it was held by an affiliated private entity, the MD Anderson Physicians Network. The trial court dismissed Fallon's suit. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Fallon's mandamus claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the Cancer Center had a right of access to the Physicians Network's records, thereby making the information "public information" under the PIA. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Fallon's declaratory judgment claim, stating that the Declaratory Judgments Act does not waive sovereign immunity for such claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Public Information ActSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentMandamusGovernmental BodyNon-profit OrganizationPhysicians NetworkMedical Peer ReviewSummary JudgmentPlea to Jurisdiction
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2000

Ramnarine v. Memorial Center for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jagdeo Ramnarine, an employee of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, suffered a laceration at the Memorial Center for Cancer and Allied Diseases. He subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit. The defendant, Memorial Center, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as both the Center and the Hospital operate as a single integrated employer despite their separate legal entities. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant. The court found substantial evidence supporting the integrated employer argument, thereby limiting the plaintiff's remedy to workers' compensation benefits and dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against the defendant.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityIntegrated Employer DoctrineSummary Judgment ReversalNegligence ClaimCross Claims DismissedCorporate Alter EgoCommon ControlBronx CountyAppellate DivisionLabor Law
References
11
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02445 [237 AD3d 1500]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2025

Matter of Cooper (Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Ctr.)

This case involves an appeal from an order that vacated an arbitration award concerning the termination of a registered nurse, Wendy Cooper, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center. Cooper was terminated for failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which was later declared null and void in an unrelated case. The arbitrator, however, upheld Cooper's termination based on the collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court vacated the arbitration award, reinstating Cooper, finding it irrational and against public policy. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, confirming the arbitration award. It held that the Supreme Court erred in vacating the award, as petitioners failed to prove it violated a strong public policy or was irrational under CPLR 7511 (b), reaffirming the limited scope of judicial review for arbitration awards.

Arbitration AwardVacaturPublic PolicyIrrationalityCOVID-19 Vaccine MandateEmployment TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewJudicial Review Limitation
References
9
Case No. Index No. 161136/17 Appeal No. 15141 Case No. 2021-02236
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2022

Quiroz v. Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jose Alfonso Perez Quiroz, a construction worker, sustained injuries after falling from an unstable scaffold at a site managed by Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases and general contractor Turner Construction Company. He initiated legal action under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and dismissed his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting Quiroz's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), finding the unsecured scaffold to be a proximate cause of his fall. The appellate court subsequently dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim as academic.

Construction AccidentScaffold FallLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment AppealPlaintiff LiabilityDefendant LiabilityProximate CausationRecalcitrant Worker Defense
References
17
Case No. 01-18-00221-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2018

University of Texas-MD Anderson Cancer Center v. Rachel Phillips

Rachel Phillips sued her employer, The University of Texas – MD Anderson Cancer Center (UTMDA), for sex discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). UTMDA appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction, arguing Phillips did not timely exhaust administrative remedies by filing a TWC complaint within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory acts. Phillips contended the 180-day period began upon her formal termination. The appellate court ruled that the 180-day period commenced when Phillips was informed of UTMDA's intent to terminate her employment, not when the termination decision came to fruition. As her complaint was filed more than 180 days after this notification, her claims were jurisdictionally barred. Consequently, the court vacated the trial court's order and dismissed the case.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationRetaliationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActSovereign ImmunitySubject-Matter JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesTimeliness of ComplaintAccrual of ActionPlea to the Jurisdiction
References
26
Case No. 01-23-00911-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2024

MD Anderson Cancer Center v. Bing Wang, M.D.

M.D. Anderson Cancer Center appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in an employment-discrimination lawsuit filed by Bing Wang, M.D. Wang alleged discrimination and retaliation after M.D. Anderson decided not to renew his faculty appointment. M.D. Anderson argued that Wang failed to timely exhaust administrative remedies by not filing a discrimination charge within 180 days of being informed of the nonrenewal. The appellate court agreed with M.D. Anderson, holding that the 180-day deadline started from the initial nonrenewal letter, not the conclusion of the internal appeal process. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's order and dismissed Wang's lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationSovereign ImmunityAdministrative RemediesTimelinessJurisdictional Prerequisite180-day DeadlineUnequivocal NoticeNonrenewal of EmploymentFaculty Appointment
References
16
Case No. 01-08-00376-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2010

Louatrice Henderson v. the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center

Louatrice Henderson appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Henderson had sued for age and race-related employment discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). The appellate court ruled that Henderson's race discrimination and retaliation claims were barred by collateral estoppel due to prior federal court decisions. Although Henderson established a prima facie case for age discrimination, she failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut M.D. Anderson's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for her termination, which included departmental restructuring. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActSummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelPretextMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkAppellate ReviewWorkplace RestructuringPrima Facie Case
References
35
Case No. 01-19-00830-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2021

David Deville v. the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center

David Deville sued his former employer, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, for disability discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) after his employment was terminated shortly after returning from disability leave due to a stroke. The employer filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity, which the trial court granted. On appeal, the First District of Texas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that Deville's allegations of less favorable treatment and the suspicious timing of his termination upon returning from medical leave were sufficient to plead a prima facie case of disability discrimination. This established a waiver of the employer's sovereign immunity, allowing the case to proceed.

Disability DiscriminationTCHRASovereign Immunity WaiverPlea to the JurisdictionPrima Facie CaseEmployment TerminationMedical LeaveRetaliationTexas LawAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. 07-10-0397-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2011

Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Dallas Area Parkinsonism Society, Inc. and American Cancer Society High Plains Division, Inc.

Appellant Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. appealed a summary judgment granted to Appellees Dallas Area Parkinsonism Society, Inc. and American Cancer Society High Plains Division, Inc. Chesapeake sought to recover bonus money paid for oil and gas leases, arguing the trial court erred in finding its claims were barred by the nature of the leases as quitclaim deeds. The appellate court examined whether the leases, containing a special warranty, functioned as a quitclaim deed or purported to convey title to the property. It also reviewed arguments concerning justifiable reliance and causation in negligent misrepresentation claims. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings, finding the leases were not quitclaims and that issues of fact remained regarding negligent misrepresentation.

Summary JudgmentOil and Gas LeasesBonus MoneyRescissionRestitutionMutual MistakeUnilateral MistakeUnjust EnrichmentNegligent MisrepresentationCovenant of Seisin
References
38
Case No. 07-10-0397-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2011

Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Dallas Area Parkinsonism Society, Inc. and American Cancer Society High Plains Division, Inc.

Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. (Chesapeake) appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Dallas Area Parkinsonism Society, Inc. (DAPS) and American Cancer Society High Plains Division, Inc. (ACS). Chesapeake sought to recover bonus money paid for oil and gas leases, asserting claims for breach of the covenant of seisin, rescission due to mutual mistake, unilateral mistake, money had and received/unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation. The Charities argued the leases, despite containing a special warranty, operated as quitclaim deeds and that Chesapeake could not show justifiable reliance due to an independent title investigation. The appellate court concluded that the leases were special warranty deeds, conveying the property itself, not merely quitclaim deeds. Furthermore, the court found that Chesapeake's preliminary title investigation did not negate reliance or causation, as it reinforced the Charities' representations and failed to reveal the defects. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Oil and Gas LeaseSummary JudgmentSpecial Warranty DeedQuitclaim DeedMutual MistakeUnilateral MistakeUnjust EnrichmentNegligent MisrepresentationCovenant of SeisinContract Dispute
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 386 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