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. 2018 NY Slip Op 07224 [165 AD3d 1558]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2018

Healthcare Professionals Ins. Co. v. Parentis

This case involves an appeal regarding a declaratory judgment action initiated by Healthcare Professionals Insurance Company (HPI) against Michael A. Parentis and others. The dispute arises from a prior medical malpractice verdict against Parentis totaling $8.6 million, which exceeded his combined $2.3 million primary and excess insurance policies from Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC) and HPI. Parentis alleged bad faith against both insurers for failing to settle the underlying action within policy limits. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to HPI and MLMIC, dismissing Parentis' bad faith claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, finding that genuine issues of material fact exist concerning whether both HPI and MLMIC acted in bad faith during settlement negotiations, especially during jury deliberations.

Insurance LawBad Faith Insurance ClaimMedical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSettlement NegotiationsExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceJury DeliberationsDuty to Settle
References
16
Case No. 13-15-00118-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2015

Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd., D/B/A Corpus Christi Medical Center v. Brenda Martinez

Brenda Martinez, a housekeeper for Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd. (dba Corpus Christi Medical Center), sued her employer after sustaining a shoulder injury during "trash and linen duty," which involved heavy lifting. She alleged negligence, claiming BAHG failed to provide a safe work environment and proper assistance. BAHG moved to dismiss, arguing her claim was a "health care liability claim" (HCLC) under the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA) requiring an expert report. The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding Martinez's claim was not an HCLC as it lacked a substantive relationship with the provision of medical care and instead concerned general workplace safety, not duties specific to a healthcare provider.

Texas Medical Liability ActHealth Care Liability ClaimWorkplace Safety StandardsEmployer NegligenceExpert Report RuleAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationRoss factorsMedical Professional DutiesNon-subscriber Employer
References
5
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. 03-15-00401-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2015

in Re Xerox Corporation and Xerox State Healthcare, LLC F/K/A ACS State Healthcare, LLC

Relators Xerox Corporation and Xerox State Healthcare, LLC seek a writ of mandamus to overturn trial court orders that struck their third-party claims and denied leave to designate responsible third parties. The underlying suit is a Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act (TMFPA) enforcement action by the State of Texas against Xerox for misrepresenting its prior authorization review process for orthodontia services, leading to unauthorized Medicaid payments. The State argues the TMFPA is a remedial public welfare statute, not tort-based, and therefore Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code (CPRC) on proportionate responsibility does not apply. The State asserts it seeks civil remedies and penalties from Xerox for its independent unlawful acts, not apportionable damages, and that Xerox has an adequate remedy on appeal.

Medicaid FraudTexas LawMandamusCivil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationState EnforcementPrior AuthorizationHealthcare LitigationTort LawProportionate Responsibility
References
98
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corporation v. Auld

This case, heard by the Supreme Court of Texas, addresses whether statutory caps apply to punitive damages and prejudgment interest in health-care-liability claims. Lexa Auld, administratrix for Martha Hary, sued Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corporation for medical negligence at its nursing home. The Court affirmed that Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 41.007 caps punitive damages, not Article 4590i, and clarified that Article 4590i’s cap does include prejudgment interest on damages subject to the cap. The decision also upheld the constitutionality of applying the cap to survival claims and Horizon's "health care provider" status, partially affirming and partially reversing the lower court's judgment.

Medical MalpracticeNursing Home NegligencePunitive DamagesActual DamagesPrejudgment InterestStatutory InterpretationDamages CapSurvival ActionHealth Care Liability ClaimConstitutional Law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simmons v. Healthcare Centers of Texas, Inc.

Jewel Simmons was injured in a fall at a nursing home operated by Healthcare Centers of Texas, Inc. (H.C.T.) on September 27, 1997, and subsequently died on October 9, 1997. Bobby Simmons, individually and as administrator of Jewel Simmons's estate, sued H.C.T. for negligence and breach of contract. H.C.T. sought summary judgment, asserting the two-year statute of limitations under the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act had run. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the claim untimely even with a seventy-five-day tolling provision. On appeal, Simmons challenged the trial court's application of the tolling provision, but the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, noting that Simmons failed to challenge all potential grounds for the summary judgment, specifically H.C.T.'s contention that the statute of limitations began on September 27, 1997.

statute of limitationssummary judgmentmedical malpracticenegligencebreach of contractnursing home liabilitywrongful deathtolling provisionMedical Liability and Insurance Improvement ActTexas Constitution
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelley v. Apria Healthcare, LLC

Jimmy Kelley died in a camper fire involving medical oxygen equipment supplied by Apria Healthcare LLC. His son, Kenneth Kelley, sued Apria for negligence. Apria moved for summary judgment, arguing Kelley had released it from liability, that the suit fell under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (which Kelley had not met requirements for), that Kelley couldn't prove negligence via res ipsa loquitur, and challenged punitive damages. The Court denied Apria's summary judgment motion. On reconsideration, the Court clarified its reasoning on several points, affirming that Apria is not a healthcare provider under the Act, supporting Kelley's res ipsa loquitur claim, allowing Joint Commission and CMS standards for negligence per se, and upholding the claim for punitive damages. Ultimately, the motion to reconsider was granted in part and denied in part, and Apria's motion for summary judgment remained denied.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentReconsiderationFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureTennessee Health Care Liability ActRes Ipsa LoquiturPunitive DamagesMedical EquipmentHome Care OrganizationRespiratory Therapists
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Classen v. Irving Healthcare System

Carol Classen sued her former employer, Irving Healthcare System, alleging retaliatory discharge for pursuing workers’ compensation benefits, a claim prohibited by Texas law. Irving Healthcare System, a municipal hospital authority and governmental entity, asserted immunity from suit. The trial court and court of appeals sided with Irving Healthcare, concluding that governmental immunity had not been waived for such claims under article 8307c. However, citing a recent precedent set in *City of La Porte v. Barfield*, the Supreme Court of Texas determined that governmental immunity had been partially waived in wrongful discharge cases. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with *Barfield*.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsGovernmental ImmunityWaiver of ImmunityMunicipal Hospital AuthoritySummary JudgmentRemandTexas LawEmployer-Employee DisputeLabor Code
References
2
Case No. W2014-00625-COA-R10-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2015

Althea Dean-Hayslett, as Surviving Widow of Jerry Hayslett v. Methodist Healthcare

This case concerns a healthcare liability action where the trial court imposed conditions on a qualified protective order, prompting an extraordinary appeal. The appellate court examined whether the trial judge had the authority to add conditions such as requiring a court reporter, testimony under oath, and filing transcripts for review. The court found that these conditions transformed the statutory ex parte interviews into quasi-depositions, which was contrary to the legislative intent. However, the court affirmed the condition that limited discussions to relevant protected health information, explicitly excluding expert opinions on causation or standard of care. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order regarding the quasi-deposition conditions but affirmed the restriction on the scope of information discussed.

Healthcare LiabilityQualified Protective OrderEx Parte InterviewsPhysician-Patient ConfidentialityHIPAAMedical RecordsDiscovery ProceduresStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
30
Case No. 13-99-275-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2000

Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd., D/B/A Columbia Bayview Psychiatric Center v. Rayburn, William H.

William H. Rayburn, a 58-year-old former director of maintenance, sued his employer, Bay Area Healthcare Group, for age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) following his termination. A jury found in favor of Rayburn, awarding back pay, compensatory damages, and exemplary damages. Bay Area appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for liability and damages, and also arguing for a new trial based on a change in law from Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n. The Court of Appeals affirmed the awards for compensatory damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, but modified the back pay award, reducing it from $83,000 to $69,925.35. The court overruled Bay Area's remaining issues, including the request for a new trial based on Kolstad.

Age DiscriminationWrongful TerminationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTCHRABack PayCompensatory DamagesExemplary DamagesMitigation of DamagesEvidentiary SufficiencyPretext
References
48
Showing 1-10 of 5,430 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