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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huntington Hospital v. Huntington Hospital Nurses' Ass'n

Huntington Hospital initiated an action under the Federal Arbitration Act to partially vacate an arbitration award, while the Huntington Hospital Nurses’ Association cross-petitioned to confirm it. The dispute originated from the Hospital unilaterally granting two nurses, Betty Evans and Lynn Meyer, longevity pay credits exceeding the ten-year cap stipulated in their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The arbitrator found the Hospital violated the CBA's sections on pay and exclusive bargaining rights. The arbitrator mandated the Hospital roll back excess credits and recover overpayments. The District Court denied the Hospital's petition, dismissing arguments regarding public policy, manifest disregard for law, and lack of award finality, ultimately confirming the arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawFederal Arbitration ActWage DisputesLongevity PayUnion RightsPublic Policy ExceptionManifest Disregard of LawContract Interpretation
References
22
Case No. 14-02-01147-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2004

Moore, Eloise v. Memorial Hermann Hospital System D/B/A Memorial Hermann Southeast Hospital

Eloise Moore, a former food service attendant at Memorial Hermann Hospital System, Inc. (MHHS), appealed a take-nothing jury verdict in a negligence suit. Moore suffered a back injury at work in November 1998, allegedly due to MHHS's negligence in failing to provide a safe workplace, proper tools, and safety training. After being terminated, she sued MHHS. The jury found that MHHS's negligence was not the proximate cause of her injury. On appeal, Moore raised seven issues, including challenges to the admission/exclusion of Social Security Administration (SSA) records, testimony from a vocational expert, her treating physician, and a workplace safety expert, as well as objections to jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

NegligenceWorkplace SafetyProximate CauseEvidentiary RulingsExpert WitnessJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTexas LawEmployment Termination
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2006

Ochei v. Coler/Goldwater Memorial Hospital

Plaintiff Joan Ochei brought an action against Coler/Goldwater Memorial Hospital and New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, alleging discrimination based on race and national origin, a hostile work environment, and retaliation, leading to constructive discharge. Ochei, a Licensed Practical Nurse, claimed inadequate training, negative evaluations, and transfer were discriminatory. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Ochei failed to establish a prima facie case. The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, finding no evidence to support Ochei's claims of discrimination, a hostile work environment, or constructive discharge. Additionally, Coler/Goldwater Memorial Hospital was deemed not a suable entity.

DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Law
References
47
Case No. 01-19-00300-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2021

Michelle Hudson v. Memorial Hospital System

Michelle Hudson sued Memorial Hospital System, Memorial Hermann Health System, ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation, and C.B. Richard Ellis, Inc. for personal injuries sustained in a malfunctioning elevator on Memorial Hermann's property. Hudson, an employee of Memorial Hermann (a non-subscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act), alleged the defendants were negligent and liable under premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Hudson appealed, arguing the trial court incorrectly applied premises liability principles instead of ordinary negligence and that genuine issues of material fact existed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Hudson's claim against Memorial Hermann sounded exclusively in premises liability and she failed to preserve her argument. The court also found Hudson provided insufficient evidence to overcome the no-evidence summary judgment for CBRE and ThyssenKrupp.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityOrdinary NegligenceSummary JudgmentElevator AccidentWorkers' Compensation Non-subscriberEmployer DutyProperty Manager LiabilityMaintenance ServicesAppellate Review
References
44
Case No. W2004-00477-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2005

James Crain, et.al v. Baptist Memorial Hospital

James Crain, an apprentice electrician, sustained severe burns while working on an electrical project for TAM Electric Company, an independent contractor, at Baptist Memorial Hospital. Crain filed a lawsuit against Baptist Memorial Hospital, alleging negligence under a theory of premises liability, claiming the hospital owed him a duty to warn of latent defects or dangerous conditions. The trial court granted summary judgment to Baptist, determining that the work was inherently dangerous and thus, the landowner (Baptist) did not owe a duty of care to the independent contractor's employee. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the exception to the general duty of a landowner applies when an independent contractor is hired to perform inherently dangerous work, and working with electricity falls into this category.

Premises LiabilityNegligenceIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentInherently Dangerous WorkDuty of CareElectrical AccidentLandowner LiabilityAppellate ReviewTennessee Law
References
21
Case No. 2-01-159-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2005

Robert Morrell and Donna Morrell, Individually, AND Mary Angeline Finke, M.D., Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates of Arlington, AND Arlington Memorial Hospital Foundation v. Mary Angeline Finke, M.D., Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates of Arlington, Arlington Memorial Hospital Foundation, Inc. D/B/A Arlington Memorial Hospital, Rose Fenton, R.N.C., Sandy Stephens, R.N., and Marianne Walker, R.N., AND Robert Morrell

Robert and Donna Morrell, individually and as next friends for their daughter Madeline, sued Dr. Finke, her employer, nurses, and a hospital for medical malpractice following Madeline's birth, alleging permanent neurological injuries due to negligence during labor and delivery. A jury awarded damages, but the trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on the Morrells' mental anguish and loss of consortium claims. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the JNOV for the Morrells' mental anguish and loss of consortium claims. The court found legally and factually sufficient evidence for the jury's negligence and causation findings against Dr. Finke and the nurses. However, it modified the judgment to impose several liability on Nurse Rose Fenton and reversed the award of past medical expenses against Nurses Fenton, Stephens, and Walker, deeming those claims barred by the statute of limitations.

Medical MalpracticeBirth InjuryCerebral PalsyHypoxic-Ischemic EncephalopathyForceps DeliveryObstetric NegligenceNursing NegligenceStatute of LimitationsJoint and Several LiabilityExpert Witness Testimony
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. Memorial Hermann Hospital System, Inc.

Eloise Moore, an MHHS employee, sustained a back injury in November 1998 while working and subsequently sued her employer, Memorial Hermann Hospital System (MHHS), for negligence. MHHS, a non-subscriber to workers' compensation, had terminated Moore's employment after her return to "light duty." Following a jury trial, a verdict was rendered in favor of MHHS, finding their negligence was not the proximate cause of Moore's injury. Moore appealed, challenging the trial court's evidentiary rulings regarding excluded expert testimony, SSA records, and a treating physician's opinions, as well as the refusal of jury instructions and the use of an "Allen-type" charge. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that no abuse of discretion occurred in any of the challenged rulings.

Back injuryEmployment disputeNegligenceWorkplace safetyJury verdictAppellate reviewEvidentiary rulingsJury instructionsProximate causeExpert testimony
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bashara v. Baptist Memorial Hospital System

This case involves a quantum meruit claim by attorney Sam C. Bashara for fees from a hospital lien held by Baptist Memorial Hospital System. Kelley F. Axtell, Bashara's client, was injured in an automobile accident, leading to a settlement with Texas Farmers Insurance Company. Bashara sought a portion of the settlement proceeds allocated to Baptist Hospital's lien. The trial court initially awarded Bashara quantum meruit recovery, but the court of appeals reversed this decision. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals, holding that a plaintiff’s attorney cannot enforce a quantum meruit claim against a health care provider to reduce the amount recoverable by a hospital lien. The Court rejected arguments based on quantum meruit, the common fund doctrine, and an analogy to workers' compensation statutes, emphasizing the statutory intent to ensure full payment of hospital liens.

Hospital LienQuantum MeruitAttorney FeesCommon Fund DoctrineStatutory InterpretationTexas Property CodeCivil ProcedureDebtor-CreditorSettlement ProceedsMedical Services
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1984

Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital v. Justice

Joseph Justice, an employee of Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital, suffered a heart attack while working, leading to a worker's compensation claim. A jury found his heart attack was work-related, causing total temporary incapacity for 370 weeks, and that the hospital failed to provide reasonable medical care. Despite the jury's initial finding on wages, the trial court disregarded it, ruling that Justice's average daily wage qualified for the maximum compensation rate. Justice died after the verdict but before the judgment was signed. The hospital appealed, challenging the court's wage determination and a perceived improper argument by Justice's counsel, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the wages conclusively proved and the argument error waived.

Worker's CompensationHeart AttackTemporary IncapacityJury VerdictTrial Court DiscretionAverage Weekly Wage CalculationMaximum Compensation RateJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoImproper ArgumentWaiver of Error
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Franzon v. Massena Memorial Hospital

This civil rights action was brought by Dr. Olof Franzon and his professional corporation against Massena Memorial Hospital and numerous individuals, alleging retaliatory harassment under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Plaintiffs claimed violations of First Amendment free speech and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights, alongside state law claims like defamation. The core of the complaint stemmed from a conspiracy to silence Dr. Franzon after he advocated for nurse-midwifery and critiqued hospital practices. Defendants sought dismissal based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, prematurity, and moved for a more definite statement. The court denied dismissal for exhaustion and prematurity, affirming federal jurisdiction for the Section 1983 claims. It partially granted the motion for a more definite statement, dismissing claims against Kenneth Maxik and Tae-Sik Choi, M.D. due to vague allegations, and rejected the equal protection claim against all defendants. However, the First Amendment free speech claim against the remaining defendants was permitted to proceed.

Civil RightsRetaliatory HarassmentFirst AmendmentFree SpeechEqual ProtectionHospital PrivilegesPhysician RightsMedical StaffMotion to DismissFederal Jurisdiction
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 1,616 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