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. 126300 R.D.
Regular Panel Decision

Bazner v. American States Insurance Co.

Walter Bazner, an insulator diagnosed with asbestosis, previously received workers' compensation benefits from L.D. Powell & Company and its insurer, American States Insurance Company, for permanent total disability and medical expenses incurred up to the judgment date. When Bazner incurred additional medical expenses post-judgment, American refused payment, arguing the prior judgment was res judicata and required pre-approval for new expenses. Bazner initiated a new suit, and the trial court sided with him. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Bazner's claim for future medical expenses was not barred, reiterating that such expenses are recoverable under T.C.A. § 50-6-204 and established procedural rules for seeking them via petition in the original action. The court also found Bazner's decision to seek further medical attention from his treating physician reasonable under the circumstances. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding future medical payments and related issues.

AsbestosisOccupational DiseaseFuture Medical ExpensesPost-Judgment CareRes Judicata DefenseEmployer Medical AuthorizationInsurance LiabilityStatutory BenefitsAppellate ReviewRemand Order
References
6
Case No. 2016-06-1429
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2017

Jackson, Eldon B. v. Express Services, Inc

Mr. Eldon B. Jackson sought payment for past medical expenses through an expedited hearing, claiming a recurrence of costochondritis was caused by his work for Express Services, Inc. The employer argued the injury was not primarily work-related and costochondritis was a pre-existing condition. The Court found Mr. Jackson failed to provide expert medical proof establishing a causal link between his employment and the condition's recurrence, which is required for non-obvious cases. Furthermore, Mr. Jackson also failed to present the actual medical bills for which he sought payment. Consequently, the Court denied his request for reimbursement of medical expenses but allowed for the possibility of presenting additional proof in the future.

Workers' CompensationMedical ExpensesExpedited HearingCostochondritisCausationPre-existing ConditionExpert Medical ProofTennesseeMisdiagnosisAortic Dissection
References
3
Case No. 2-06-016-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2007

Shioleno Industries, Inc. AND Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. and Columbia North Texas Subsidiary, GP, LLC D/B/A Medical Center of Arlington v. Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. and Columbia North Texas Subsidiary, GP, LLC D/B/A Medical Center of Arlington AND Shioleno Industries, Inc.

Shioleno Industries, Inc. appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. and Columbia North Texas Subsidiary, GP, LLC d/b/a Medical Center of Arlington (the Hospital). The case originated from the Hospital's alleged failure to disclose an employee's positive drug and alcohol test results to Shioleno after an on-the-job injury. Shioleno contended that this omission led to increased workers' compensation premiums and expenses in unemployment benefit disputes. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Shioleno failed to provide a valid authorization for the disclosure of medical information. Consequently, the Hospital had no legal duty to disclose the results and could not be held liable for negligence, breach of contract, or Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations.

Summary JudgmentMedical RecordsDisclosure AuthorizationHealth & Safety CodeNegligenceBreach of ContractDTPADrug TestingAlcohol TestingEmployer Liability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tucker v. Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n

This case, an opinion on rehearing, addresses a take-nothing judgment rendered against appellants Alton W. Tucker and his attorney McConnell, who sought attorney’s fees under the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act. The claim was severed from a prior third-party worker’s compensation suit where Tucker settled with Dow Chemical Company and sued EIMCO Process Equipment Company. The jury in the EIMCO suit found EIMCO not liable and no future medical expenses for Tucker. The trial court subsequently denied attorney’s fees based on future medical expenses, applying collateral estoppel. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the issue of future medical expenses was not fully litigated or essential to the judgment in the prior EIMCO lawsuit, thus collateral estoppel was improperly applied. The case is remanded for an independent determination of Tucker’s future medical expenses and related attorney’s fees.

Attorney's FeesWorker's CompensationCollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionFuture Medical ExpensesSubrogationRemandAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Carrier
References
4
Case No. 11-03-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2005

Ray Warren, M.D. and Texas Medical Images, Inc. v. KPH-Consolidation, Inc., D/B/A Columbia Kingwood Medical Center

Ray Warren, M.D. and Texas Medical Images, Inc. (Warren) appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to KPH-Consolidation, Inc. d/b/a Columbia Kingwood Medical Center (Kingwood). The dispute arose from Warren's failure to pay rent on two lease agreements, leading Kingwood to sue for breach of contract. The trial court granted Kingwood's motion for summary judgment and ruled against Warren on his counterclaim regarding a breach of an Expense Sharing Agreement and breach of warranty. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Kingwood had proven its breach-of-contract claim and that Warren's counterclaim failed as a matter of law, partly due to an 'as is' clause in the Equipment Lease. The appellate court also upheld the denial of Warren's motion for a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion.

summary judgmentbreach of contractlease agreementequipment leasecounterclaimbreach of warranty"as is" clauseappellate reviewabuse of discretionTexas law
References
8
Case No. 2015-07-0040
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2016

Choate, Jerry v. Revel Logging, LLC

Jerry Choate, a truck driver, sustained neck, back, and head injuries in an August 2014 work accident. He sought permanent partial disability, additional temporary total disability (TTD), and mileage reimbursement. The employer, Revel Logging, LLC, disputed these claims and requested reimbursement for a TTD overpayment. Medical evaluations indicated no permanent impairment and set the maximum medical improvement (MMI) date at December 9, 2014. The Court denied Mr. Choate's claims for permanent partial disability, additional TTD, and mileage reimbursement, concluding his injuries did not result in permanent disability and his legal residence was within the qualifying mileage for providers. However, the Court granted Mr. Choate future medical benefits and denied Revel's request for TTD overpayment reimbursement, citing employer oversight and potential hardship to Mr. Choate.

Workers' CompensationDisability BenefitsMedical BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityMileage ReimbursementOverpayment ReimbursementPost-traumatic HeadachesMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Neurosurgeon Evaluation
References
9
Case No. 2016-03-0449
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2016

Rodgers, Katherine v. NHC Healthcare

Katherine Rodgers, an employee, filed an Expedited Hearing Request seeking temporary disability benefits and reimbursement for unauthorized medical expenses after a work-related right shoulder injury. The employer, NHC Healthcare, and its carrier, Premier Group Insurance, had provided authorized medical panels, but Rodgers sought additional treatment without their authorization due to ongoing pain. The Court found that Rodgers' decision to seek unauthorized care was not reasonable, as she failed to properly notify her employer and did not establish the necessity and reasonableness of the associated charges. Furthermore, the Court concluded that she was not entitled to temporary disability benefits because no authorized medical provider had taken her completely off work, and she did not substantiate her claims regarding work restrictions. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Judge denied Ms. Rodgers' claims for both unauthorized medical treatment expenses and temporary disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical ExpensesUnauthorized TreatmentExpedited HearingWork InjuryShoulder InjuryCertified Nursing AssistantEmployer ObligationsEmployee Responsibilities
References
7
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01773 [236 AD3d 571]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2025

Morrobel v. Alicea

This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Ninoska Morrobel, concerning injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, awarded principal sums for past pain and suffering, future pain and suffering, and future medical expenses, along with interest. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the jury's findings regarding the causal relationship of cervical spine injuries to the accident and the awards for pain and suffering and future medical expenses. The appellate court rejected arguments that the findings were against the weight of the evidence or that Insurance Law § 5108 limited future medical expense damages. However, it modified the judgment to vacate the original interest award and remitted the matter for recalculation of interest at the statutorily mandated 3% rate for cases against the New York City Transit Authority, instead of the 9% rate initially applied.

Motor Vehicle AccidentPersonal Injury DamagesCervical Spine InjuriesJury Verdict ReviewAppellate ProcedureInterest Rate CalculationPublic Authorities LawInsurance Law ApplicationMedical Expense AwardsWeight of Evidence
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephens v. Henley's Supply & Industry, Inc.

James E. Stephens, a carpenter, sustained a work-related dental injury, resulting in tooth loss and fractures. The Chancery Court awarded him 15% permanent partial disability and future medical expenses. However, the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed the disability award and denied future medical expenses. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review and ultimately affirmed Stephens' entitlement to future medical expenses under Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-204, reversing the Panel's effective denial. Concurrently, the Court adopted the Panel’s conclusion denying permanent partial disability benefits, finding no vocational impairment.

Permanent Partial DisabilityFuture Medical ExpensesDental InjuryAppellate ReviewVocational ImpairmentEmployer LiabilityTennessee LawMedical Treatment EntitlementTrial Court ReversalSupreme Court Review
References
5
Case No. NO. 01-16-00724-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2018

LMMM Houston 41, Ltd., LMMM Houston 41, Ltd, Dba La Michoacana Meat Market 41 v. Jesus Santibanez

This appeal arises from a premises liability suit where Jesus Santibanez slipped and fell on grease at La Michoacana Meat Market. A jury found La Michoacana Meat Market negligent, awarding Santibanez damages, including $120,000 for future medical expenses. La Michoacana Meat Market appealed, challenging jury instructions and the sufficiency of evidence, while Santibanez cross-appealed the reduction of his future medical expenses via JNOV. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the jury instructions and upholding the JNOV due to insufficient evidence to support the jury's original $120,000 award for future medical expenses.

Premises LiabilitySlip and FallPersonal InjuryJury InstructionsLegal SufficiencyFuture Medical ExpensesJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictInviteeOrdinary CareConcealed Danger
References
43
Showing 1-10 of 13,711 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