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. 10-10-00350-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2011

in the Interest of R.S., A.S., N.S., and B.J.S., Children

Rebecca S., Michael W., and Billy B. appealed a trial court's judgment in Johnson County, Texas, terminating their parental rights to R.S., A.S., N.S., and B.J.S. The jury found grounds for termination, including endangerment due to unstable living conditions, exposure to individuals with histories of abuse/neglect, and the parents' mental deficiencies. The appeals court reviewed the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence and affirmed the termination. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to refuse a requested jury charge related to retaining jurisdiction under Section 263.403.

parental rights terminationchild endangermentbest interest of the childmental deficiencyneglectabuseappellate reviewTexas Family Codejury verdictunstable environment
References
11
Case No. 2015-451 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2017

Z.M.S. & Y Acupuncture, P.C. v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an action by Z.M.S. & Y Acupuncture, P.C., as assignee of Melo, Carmen, to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from GEICO General Insurance Company. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved to dismiss claims. The Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, limited the issues for trial regarding the application of the workers' compensation fee schedule to services billed under specific CPT codes. On appeal to the Appellate Term, Second Department, the Civil Court's order was modified. The Appellate Term granted the branches of GEICO's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing claims for services under CPT codes 97811, 97813, and 97814, and as so modified, affirmed the order.

no-fault benefitsacupuncturesummary judgmentCPT codesworkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate Terminsurance claimprofessional corporationsassigned benefits
References
1
Case No. 2015-1563 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2017

Z. M. S. & Y Acupuncture, P.C. v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by GEICO General Insurance Company from an order of the Civil Court that denied branches of its cross-motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff, Z. M. S. & Y Acupuncture, P.C., sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for services billed under CPT codes 97811, 97813, and 97814. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the lower court's order, granting GEICO's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that GEICO had fully paid the plaintiff for services in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture, and since the services were rendered after April 1, 2013, the defense regarding the fee schedule was not subject to preclusion. Plaintiff failed to rebut this showing.

No-fault benefitsAcupuncture servicesWorkers' compensation fee scheduleSummary judgmentCPT codesAppellate reviewInsurance disputeMedical billingFee dispute
References
2
Case No. 2015-1094 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2017

V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal brought by NY Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co. against V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C., an assignee, concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant appealed an order from the Civil Court that denied its motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims for services rendered between October 2009 and February 2010. The Appellate Term found that the defendant had properly mailed denial of claim forms and established that the amounts sought by the plaintiff exceeded the applicable workers' compensation fee schedule. Consequently, the Appellate Term reversed the lower court's order and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the relevant parts of the complaint.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFee Schedule DefenseDenial of ClaimWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleInsurance LawFirst-Party BenefitsAssignee RightsCivil Court Order
References
1
Case No. 2-06-409-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2007

in the Interest of A.M.S.S., a Child

Appellant Lola S. appealed the trial court's denial of her motion for new trial, asserting an abuse of discretion in terminating her parental rights to her child, A.M.S.S. Lola S. did not appear for trial, claiming she did not receive written notice due to a change of address, though her counsel confirmed she was informed. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (TDFPS) presented a history of Lola S.'s endangering conduct towards her other child and other criminal acts. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence that Lola S. endangered the child's well-being and that termination was in the child's best interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was no abuse of discretion.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewFamily LawChild WelfareTexasDefault JudgmentEvidence Admissibility
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25024
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2025

Matter of W.S. v. G.S.

The petitioner (W.S.) filed a family offense petition against the respondent (G.S.), his sister, alleging harassment in the second degree. W.S. claimed G.S. threatened 'further consequences' and made false statements in a Mental Hygiene Law article 9 petition, leading to W.S.'s arrest. G.S. argued her statements were privileged and made due to genuine fear and concerns about W.S.'s mental health and hoarding. The court held that communications made in support of a Mental Hygiene Law petition are subject to a qualified privilege and serve a 'legitimate purpose' unless made with knowing/reckless disregard of falsity and solely to alarm/annoy. The court found W.S. failed to prove G.S.'s statements met this higher standard or that her other alleged actions constituted harassment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Family OffenseHarassment Second DegreeMental Hygiene Law Article 9Qualified PrivilegeLegitimate Purpose DefenseIntent to HarassBurden of ProofCredibility of WitnessesStatements to PoliceMalice Standard
References
22
Case No. 01-03-00924-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2005

Mary Williams, D.D.S. and Russell Williams, D.D.S. v. L.M.S.C., Inc., D/B/A the Dental Solution

Mary Williams, D.D.S. and Russell Williams, D.D.S. appealed a judgment in favor of L.M.S.C., Inc., d/b/a The Dental Solution (TDS), stemming from a breach of contract dispute. TDS, a dental placement service, sued the Williams for an unpaid permanent placement fee after Diana Flanagan, whom TDS had previously placed temporarily as a dental hygienist, was hired by the Williams as a full-time dentist. The appellants challenged the jury's findings, arguing the contract did not cover dentists, lacked new consideration for modifications, and missed essential terms. The First District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the placement agreement, as modified by subsequent fee schedules, applied to the placement of dentists and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that the Williamses breached the contract by failing to pay the permanent placement fee. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees.

Breach of ContractPlacement AgreementDental IndustryPermanent Placement FeeContract ModificationConsiderationMeeting of the MindsLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesPrejudgment Interest
References
35
Case No. 07-06-0379-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2007

Dawn Gayken, D.D.S. v. Ann D. Ewton, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of Merle Clement Ewton, D.D.S.

Dawn Gayken, D.D.S. (appellant) appealed a trial court's order. The appellant's counsel informed the court that Dawn Gayken had filed a voluntary petition as debtor under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Consequently, any further action in this appeal is automatically stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362. For administrative purposes, the appeal is removed from the docket of this court and abated. The appeal will be reinstated upon a proper motion showing that the stay has been lifted or that the court may otherwise proceed with the disposition of the cause.

BankruptcyAutomatic StayAbatementAppellate ProcedureVoluntary PetitionDebtorStay LiftedJurisdictionTexas Court of AppealsCivil Procedure
References
1
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01069 [158 AD3d 703]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2018

Matter of Bella S. (Sarah S.)

The case "Matter of Bella S. (Sarah S.)" involves an appeal from a Family Court order that found Sarah S. (mother) neglected her child, Bella S. The Administration for Children's Services had petitioned, alleging the mother's untreated bipolar disorder and other mental illnesses put the child at risk. The Family Court agreed, but the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this finding. The Appellate Division concluded that the petitioner failed to prove inadequate treatment or imminent harm, noting the mother's consistent efforts in seeking housing, prenatal care, methadone treatment, and psychiatric medication. Consequently, the petition against the mother was denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

Child NeglectParental RightsMental IllnessBipolar DisorderAdequate TreatmentAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofImminent DangerFamily Court ActKings County
References
8
Case No. 03-03-00079-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2003

Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S., D/B/A Jeanne N. Taylor D.D.S., Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. State Farm Lloyds, Inc.

Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S., appealed a district court's summary judgment in favor of State Farm Lloyds, Inc. Taylor had sued State Farm, alleging that the insurer violated the Texas Insurance Code by issuing her business a multi-peril insurance policy with "hired and non-owned auto liability" coverage without mandatory personal injury protection (PIP) or uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that hired and non-owned auto liability insurance is distinct from "auto liability insurance" as defined in Article 5, Subchapter A of the Texas Insurance Code. The court further concluded that the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) had the authority under Article 5.02 to regulate such policies under other rating laws, thus making PIP and UM/UIM coverage not mandatory for Taylor's specific policy.

Insurance LawMulti-peril PolicyHired and Non-Owned Auto LiabilityPersonal Injury Protection (PIP)Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM)Texas Insurance CodeStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative Remedies Exhaustion
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 11,582 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