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. 07-09-0277-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2011

Joseph E. Hancock v. Easwaran P. Variyam

Joseph E. Hancock appealed a defamation judgment in favor of Easwaran P. Variyam. The case stemmed from a letter Hancock wrote to Variyam's superiors and a professional accreditation body, alleging Variyam had a "reputation for lack of veracity" and "deals in half truths." The trial court found these statements to be libel per se, and a jury awarded Variyam $90,000 in actual damages and $85,000 in exemplary damages. Hancock challenged the libel per se finding, the sufficiency of damages evidence, and the admission of an anonymous letter at trial. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the libel per se finding and the damage awards, and deeming any error regarding the anonymous letter harmless.

DefamationLibel per seMental Anguish DamagesReputation DamagesExemplary DamagesMedical ProfessionalsProfessional EthicsAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceTexas Law
References
71
Case No. 10-05-00017-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2005

A.J. Morris, M.D. v. Katherine L. Blanchette, M.D.

Dr. A.J. Morris sued Dr. Katherine Blanchette for libel per se following a peer review report by Blanchette that criticized Morris's patient treatment. The trial court granted Blanchette's summary judgment motion. Morris appealed, arguing that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the statements were protected opinions, libelous per se, or privileged. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Blanchette's report constituted a constitutionally protected expression of opinion and was not defamatory, especially within the context of the worker's compensation independent review system.

Libel per sePeer ReviewMedical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentConstitutional ProtectionOpinion vs. FactWorkers' Compensation SystemDefamationHealth & Safety CodeAppellate Decision
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hancock v. Variyam

The case involves an appeal by Joseph E. Hancock against a defamation judgment favoring Easwaran P. Variyam. Both physicians at Texas Tech University Medical Center, Hancock defamed Variyam in a letter to superiors and an accreditation body. The trial court deemed the statements libel per se, finding malice and rejecting truth as a defense. Variyam was awarded $90,000 in actual damages and $85,000 in exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed, upholding the libel per se finding, confirming the sufficiency of damages evidence for mental anguish and reputation loss, and ruling that any error in admitting an anonymous letter was harmless.

DefamationLibel per sePhysician misconductReputation damageMental anguishExemplary damagesTexas lawAppellate reviewJury trialMedical professionals
References
77
Case No. Docket No. 8
Regular Panel Decision

Desano v. Blossom South, LLC

This case involves a lawsuit alleging violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Americans with Disability Act (ADA), and a state law claim for libel per se. The Plaintiff, an employee of the Defendant, claimed that confidential medical information was improperly disclosed in violation of ADA confidentiality provisions. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss all federal claims and the state law claim. The Court dismissed the FMLA claims (First, Second, and Fourth causes of action) but allowed the ADA claim and the state law libel per se claim (Third and Fifth causes of action) to proceed, finding a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4).

FMLA violationsADA violationsLibel per seMotion to dismissConfidentiality of medical informationEmployer inquiryJob-related functionsSupplemental jurisdictionPlausibility standardRule 12(b)(6)
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. Blanchette

Dr. A.J. Morris sued Dr. Katherine Blanchette for libel per se following a peer review report Blanchette issued to a worker’s compensation carrier. The report was critical of Morris’s treatment of patient Lawrence Davis, specifically stating that further physical therapy and prescription medications were not medically necessary after Davis reached maximum medical improvement. Morris contended that the report was defamatory, accusing him of a felony offense by prescribing medicine without a valid medical purpose. The trial court granted Blanchette's motion for summary judgment. Morris appealed, arguing that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the statements were constitutionally protected opinions, libelous per se, and if they were privileged. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Blanchette’s report contained a constitutionally protected expression of opinion and was not defamatory, thereby upholding the integrity of the independent medical review system in worker's compensation.

Libel Per SeDefamationPeer ReviewMedical NecessityWorker's Compensation SystemSummary JudgmentFact vs. OpinionConstitutional ProtectionMedical Treatment DisputeAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1978

Memphis Publishing Co. v. Nichols

Ruth Ann Nichols and Bobby Lee Nichols sued Memphis Press-Scimitar for defamation and invasion of privacy after an article falsely implied Mrs. Nichols had an adulterous affair, leading to a shooting. The trial court directed a verdict for the newspaper, but the Court of Appeals reversed, applying an ordinary care standard and eliminating the need for special damages for imputed adultery. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the reversal, adopting the ordinary negligence standard for private individuals in defamation cases against media defendants. It also abolished the common-law per se/per quod distinction for damages and remanded Mrs. Nichols' libel suit for a new trial, while dismissing Mr. Nichols' libel claim and both invasion of privacy actions.

DefamationLibelInvasion of PrivacyFirst AmendmentFreedom of the PressActual MaliceNegligence StandardPrivate FigurePublic FigurePresumed Damages
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'Lima v. Cuba Memorial Hospital, Inc.

Plaintiff Neil V. D’Lima, D.D.S., commenced an employment discrimination action against Cuba Memorial Hospital, Inc. and its CEO, Andrew H. Boser, III, alleging discrimination based on race, color, national origin (Indian), violations of the NYHRL, ADA, slander per se, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved to dismiss several claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss the ADA and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Additionally, the slander per se claim was partially granted regarding statements made by Boser to Kerling due to qualified privilege. However, the motion was denied for the slander per se claim concerning statements made by Boser to Glover and claims where Glover acted under the employer's express authority, as well as the NYHRL claim against Boser. The court also exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationColor DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationNYHRLADATitle VIISlander Per SeIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMotion to Dismiss
References
31
Case No. 13-02-471-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2003

Madhavan Pisharodi, M.D. v. J. Martin Barrash, M.D. and Houston Neurosurgical Associates, P.A.

This case concerns an appeal by Dr. Madhavan Pisharodi against a summary judgment awarded to Dr. J. Martin Barrash and Houston Neurosurgical Associates, P.A., in a libel suit. Dr. Pisharodi claimed Dr. Barrash's letter, assessing his medical treatment of a patient, was libelous per se due to accusations of criminal conduct like assault and overcharging. The trial court's decision, which considered the statements protected opinion and absolutely privileged due to a quasi-judicial proceeding, was reversed by the appellate court. The appellate court found the letter capable of defamatory meaning and that questions of fact existed regarding its re-publication outside privileged contexts, thus potentially waiving the privilege. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

LibelDefamationSummary JudgmentAbsolute PrivilegeProtected SpeechMedical OpinionReversalRemandPhysician MisconductProfessional Negligence
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Calore v. Powell-Savory Corp.

Raymond Galore, acting individually and as president of an AFL-CIO local union, appealed a libel action where the Supreme Court, Westchester County, had dismissed his entire complaint. The appellate court reviewed the dismissal, specifically focusing on the first cause of action which alleged anti-Negro discrimination by Union Local 664. The court reversed the lower court's order and judgment regarding the first cause of action, denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss this part of the complaint. It was determined that falsely charging a labor union with anti-Negro discrimination is libelous per se, especially considering the prevailing public sentiment at the time. The action was severed as to the first cause of action, and defendants were granted additional time to serve answers.

libeldefamationdiscriminationlabor unionAFL-CIOappellate reviewmotion to dismisslibel per serepresentative capacityunion president
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aacon Contracting Co. v. Herrmann

Defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for libel, arguing the publications did not directly affect the plaintiff's corporate business and lacked special damage allegations. The court examined two publications: one mentioning 'Cadillac' making disparaging remarks about 'colored people' and the plaintiff's alleged efforts to pressure ACTU with Catholic clergy, and another regarding the 'Association of Catholic Trade Unionists' charging a secretary-treasurer's arrest in relation to a 'racket union.' The court determined these statements were sufficient to sustain an action for libel per se. However, due to a missing allegation of authorization or ratification against the defendant association, the motion to dismiss was granted for the defendant association, but otherwise denied, with the plaintiff given leave to serve an amended complaint.

LibelDefamationMotion to DismissCorporate LibelLibel Per SePleading SufficiencyAmended ComplaintCorporate LiabilityVicarious LiabilityTrade Union Liability
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,375 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