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

Thomann v. Lakes Regional MHMR Center

Susan Lorraine Thomann appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Lakes Regional MHMR Center, dismissing her claims of employment discrimination and retaliation. Thomann, a house parent, was terminated after undergoing knee and back surgeries that resulted in a permanent lifting restriction, preventing her from performing essential job functions. She alleged discrimination based on disability and retaliation for an internal complaint. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Thomann failed to produce sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact that she was disabled under the Texas Labor Code or that her termination was retaliatory. The court noted that Lakes Regional had offered her an alternative receptionist position, which she declined.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeLifting RestrictionsReasonable AccommodationEssential Job FunctionsMajor Life ActivityRecord of Disability
References
51
Case No. 08-08-00232-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2011

Region XIX Service Center v. Maria R. Banda

Maria Banda sustained a work-related left knee injury in 1992, leading to multiple surgeries and related conditions including carpal tunnel syndrome in both hands. She sought lifetime income benefits (LIBs) for total and permanent loss of use of her hands and left foot. After an initial denial by the Worker's Compensation Commission, a jury found in her favor, establishing an LIB accrual date of January 1, 2003. Region XIX Service Center appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for total loss of use and the accrual date. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding the evidence legally and factually sufficient, but reformed the interest rate on the accrued benefits.

Worker's Compensation BenefitsLifetime Income BenefitsTotal Loss of UseAccrual DateLegal Sufficiency ReviewFactual Sufficiency ReviewAppellate Court DecisionMedical Expert TestimonyCarpal Tunnel SyndromeKnee Injury
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blocker v. Regional Medical Center at Memphis

Carolyn Blocker appealed the trial court's dismissal of her worker's compensation claim based on the statute of limitations. Blocker sustained an arm injury in April 1982, aggravated in October 1983, alleging continuous treatment by an employer-designated physician. Defendants, Regional Medical Center at Memphis and U.S. Security Fire & Casualty Insurance Companies, argued the claim was time-barred as the last voluntary payment was made in January 1983 or January 1984. The Supreme Court found that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the dates of last voluntary compensation, the connection between the two injuries, and whether the plaintiff was adequately informed that payments for her medical treatment had shifted from worker's compensation to Blue Cross-Blue Shield. Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the need for full development of facts in such cases.

Worker's CompensationStatute of LimitationsSummary Judgment AppealLast Voluntary PaymentMedical BenefitsContinuous TreatmentAggravated InjuryEmployer-Designated PhysicianInsurance Coverage DisputeGenuine Issues of Material Fact
References
21
Case No. E2012-02664-COA-R9-CV-FILED-JANUARY 16, 2014
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2014

Lisa Womble v. University Health System, Inc. d/b/a University of Tennessee Regional Medical Center

This case originated from an employment action filed by Lisa Womble, a nurse, after her termination from the University of Tennessee Regional Medical Center, which was operated by University Health System, Inc. (UHS), a private nonprofit corporation. Womble, classified as a 'leased' employee, retained certain university benefits. The trial court sua sponte ruled Tennessee Code Annotated section 49-9-112(a), the statute governing leased employees, unconstitutional, prompting an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court examined whether the statute constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority or an unconstitutional lending of the State's credit. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's determination, affirming the constitutionality of the statute and remanding the case for further proceedings.

employment lawconstitutional lawstate employeesleased employeeslegislative delegationlending of state creditpublic purposedue processadministrative procedureswrongful termination
References
26
Case No. 02A01-9505-CV-00118
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 1996

Cassandra Hughlett v. Shelby County Health Care Corporation, Regional Medical Center at Memphis A/K/A The Med

Plaintiff Cassandra Hughlett underwent a cesarean section in 1991, during which a surgical sponge was allegedly left in her abdomen by the defendants, Shelby County Health Care Corporation, Regional Medical Center at Memphis, a/k/a "The Med," and the University of Tennessee Medical Group, Inc. She subsequently experienced severe pain and required readmission to remove the foreign body, leading her to file a medical malpractice suit alleging negligence. The parties reached a settlement, but a dispute remained regarding whether the plaintiff could recover $6,777.17 in medical expenses paid by the Tennessee Medicaid program from the defendants. The trial court ruled in favor of Hughlett, holding that Medicaid payments were recoverable. "The Med" appealed, arguing that social security benefits (which they claimed Medicaid payments were part of) are collateral sources under T.C.A. § 29-26-119 and thus not recoverable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, citing Nance by Nance v. Westside Hosp. and federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1396a (a) 25(A)), which mandates states to pursue recovery from legally liable third parties. The court concluded that the plaintiff's losses were not "replaced or indemnified" due to the state's right of subrogation for Medicaid payments, making the benefits recoverable.

Medical MalpracticeMedicaid PaymentsCollateral Source RuleSubrogation RightsSocial Security BenefitsHealth Care Provider NegligenceSurgical ErrorForeign Body RetentionCesarean Section ComplicationsDamages Recovery
References
4
Case No. 13-14-00319-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2015

Benjamin Ebaseh-Onofa, Individually, as Personal Representative of and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of the Estate of Omonosioni Ebaseh-Onofa v. McAllen Hospitals, L. P. D/B/A Edinburg Regional Medical Center

Benjamin Ebaseh-Onofa, representing the estate of his deceased wife, Omonosioni Ebaseh-Onofa, sued McAllen Hospitals, L.P. d/b/a Edinburg Regional Medical Center for wrongful death, alleging gross negligence. Onofa, a nurse at the Hospital's Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, contracted the H1N1 virus and died in 2009. Benjamin claimed the Hospital's failure to provide N95 masks and monitor staff for respiratory illness, as per CDC guidelines, caused her infection. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Hospital, concluding Benjamin failed to provide sufficient evidence of causation for a Health Care Liability Claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, ruling that Benjamin's claim was an HCLC and that he presented only speculation, not evidence, that Onofa contracted H1N1 at the Hospital, especially since the patient identified as the source tested negative for influenza.

Wrongful DeathGross NegligenceSummary JudgmentCausationHealth Care Liability ClaimMedical MalpracticeH1N1 VirusSwine FluNursing Home/Hospital NegligenceDiscovery Disputes
References
24
Case No. 03-03-00435-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission/East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery And Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. v. East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery/Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case involves the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission's failure to establish fee guidelines for ambulatory surgical centers under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. East Side Surgical Center, Clinic for Special Surgery, and intervenor Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. (collectively "East Side") sued the Commission to invalidate certain default rules that applied when specific guidelines were absent. The district court declared one rule (133.304(i)) invalid and enjoined its enforcement, citing unlawful delegation of authority. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment regarding the rule's invalidity and dissolved the injunction, citing a Texas Supreme Court decision finding no unlawful delegation. The court affirmed that East Side was not entitled to its usual and customary fee in the absence of specific guidelines.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawDelegation of AuthorityRulemakingAmbulatory Surgical CentersJudicial ReviewInsurance CarrierFee GuidelinesFair and Reasonable RatesStatutory Interpretation
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

East Texas Medical Center Regional Health Care System v. Reddic

Reddic, a non-patient, slipped on a wet rug at East Texas Medical Center's reception desk, leading to a lawsuit against ETMC. ETMC moved to dismiss, arguing the claim was a health care liability claim (HCLC) requiring an expert report under Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, asserting a departure from accepted standards of safety. Reddic maintained it was a premises liability claim, not an HCLC, thus exempting her from filing an expert report. The dissenting judge contends that Reddic's status as a non-patient not involved in rendering medical care excludes her claim from the TMLA's ambit. The dissent advocates for affirming the trial court's denial of ETMC's motion to dismiss, emphasizing the distinction between patient and non-patient claims in healthcare facilities.

Medical MalpracticePremises LiabilityHealth Care Liability ClaimExpert ReportTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeChapter 74TMLASlip and FallHospital LiabilityNon-patient
References
7
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. ADJ1441533 (VNO0549858)
Regular
Jun 15, 2010

DOMINGO RECIO vs. KERN MEDICAL CENTER, COUNTY OF KERN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior decision regarding Domingo Recio's claim against Kern Medical Center. Although the Board acknowledged that the issue of laches was raised, it adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, finding that the petitioner failed to meet their burden of proof on this issue. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

DOMINGO RECIOKERN MEDICAL CENTERCOUNTY OF KERNADJ1441533VNO0549858ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATIONPetition for Reconsiderationworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJlaches
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,177 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