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. 13-13-00552-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2015

Nolana Open MRI Center, Inc. v. Guillermo R. Pechero M.D.Ruben D. Pechero M.D. Maplestar Orthopedics, P. A.

Nolana Open MRI Center, Inc. appealed a judgment rendered against it following a bench trial. The appellees, Guillermo R. Pechero, M.D., Ruben D. Pechero, M.D., and Maplestar Orthopedics, P.A., filed a motion to show authority, contending Nolana's counsel lacked the authority to bring the appeal. The underlying dispute involved the sale of Nolana's assets, patient referrals, lease agreements, and counterclaims for fraudulent inducement, conversion, and breach of contract. A key issue was a 50-50 ownership split in Nolana between Jose Castro and Agustin Garcia, where Castro had settled with defendants and granted them limited power of attorney to oppose litigation, while Garcia sought to authorize the appeal. The Court of Appeals, reviewing the trial court's findings, concluded that Nolana's counsel lacked standing due to the unresolved ownership conflict regarding the authority to initiate the appeal.

Appellate ProcedureJurisdictionMotion to Show AuthorityCorporate AuthorityShareholder DisputeLimited Power of AttorneyBreach of ContractTheft Liability ActFraudulent InducementTortious Interference
References
30
Case No. 13-0096
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2014

Tenet Hospitals Limited, a Texas Limited Partnership D/B/A Providence Memorial Hospital, and Michael D. Compton, M.D. v. Elizabeth Rivera, as Next Friend for M.R.

This case concerns a challenge to the constitutionality of the Medical Liability Act's ten-year statute of repose. Petitioners, Tenet Hospitals Limited and Michael D. Compton, M.D., sought summary judgment arguing the statute barred a medical negligence claim filed by Elizabeth Rivera on behalf of M.R. The alleged negligence occurred in 1996, and the suit was filed in 2011, five years after the 2003 repose statute's 2006 deadline. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed, finding the statute unconstitutional as applied to M.R. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Rivera, acting as M.R.'s next friend, failed to demonstrate due diligence in filing the claim within the three-year grace period afforded by the statute. The Court also found the retroactivity challenge failed due to the compelling public interest in the Medical Liability Act and the sufficient grace period provided. Consequently, the Supreme Court rendered judgment that the plaintiff take nothing.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of ReposeOpen Courts ProvisionRetroactivityDue DiligenceMinor's ClaimConstitutional LawSummary JudgmentTexas Supreme CourtHealthcare Liability
References
26
Case No. 13-16-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2018

Fatih Ozcelebi, M. D. v. K. v. Chowdary, M. D., Individually and D/B/A Valley Gastroenterology Clinic, P. A.: Valley Gastroenterology Clinic P. A.

Appellant, Fatih Ozcelebi, M.D., appealed various rulings in a long-standing dispute with appellees K.V. Chowdary, M.D., and Valley Gastroenterology Clinic, P.A. (VGC). The case stemmed from an employment agreement with non-compete and liquidated damages clauses, which Dr. Ozcelebi allegedly breached by leaving VGC early and starting his own practice. Dr. Chowdary sued for breach of contract and fiduciary duty, while Dr. Ozcelebi filed counterclaims including RICO, ERISA, and others. The trial court granted special exceptions against Dr. Ozcelebi's pleadings for improper verification and subsequently granted summary judgments in favor of Dr. Chowdary. Additionally, Dr. Ozcelebi was sanctioned for failing to attend a court-ordered mediation with his attorney. The Court of Appeals affirmed all of the trial court's judgments and orders.

Employment LawContract DisputeNon-Compete AgreementLiquidated DamagesBreach of Fiduciary DutyCivil ProcedureSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsMediation SanctionsERISA Preemption
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S.M. v. M.M.-M.

This case involves a matrimonial action between S.M. (plaintiff) and M.M-M. (defendant) concerning pendente lite relief, child support, maintenance, and the equitable distribution of marital assets, specifically the transfer of the husband's business (EA & D) to his daughter. The court granted the wife's request for the husband to continue paying all costs associated with maintaining the marital residence and awarded her $1,290 per month in temporary child support, retroactive to July 30, 2015. However, the court denied the wife's motion to determine if the transfer of EA & D was improper, reserving the issue for trial due to a factual dispute over the husband's intent. The court also denied the request for a forensic evaluation of EA & D and M. Studios, stating it lacked jurisdiction over the transferred business and that M. Studios had no assets to value. The court noted that if the transfer is later found improper, the wife could be awarded a greater share of remaining marital property.

divorce proceedingstemporary maintenancechild support awardmarital property disputebusiness asset transferequitable distribution factorsforensic accounting denialmatrimonial lawNew York Supreme Courtpendente lite relief
References
12
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. 01-23-00911-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2024

MD Anderson Cancer Center v. Bing Wang, M.D.

M.D. Anderson Cancer Center appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in an employment-discrimination lawsuit filed by Bing Wang, M.D. Wang alleged discrimination and retaliation after M.D. Anderson decided not to renew his faculty appointment. M.D. Anderson argued that Wang failed to timely exhaust administrative remedies by not filing a discrimination charge within 180 days of being informed of the nonrenewal. The appellate court agreed with M.D. Anderson, holding that the 180-day deadline started from the initial nonrenewal letter, not the conclusion of the internal appeal process. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's order and dismissed Wang's lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationSovereign ImmunityAdministrative RemediesTimelinessJurisdictional Prerequisite180-day DeadlineUnequivocal NoticeNonrenewal of EmploymentFaculty Appointment
References
16
Case No. 03-16-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2016

Steve F. Montoya, Jr., M.D., West Texas Renal Care and West Texas Nephrology v. San Angelo Community Medical Center and Kirk Brewer, M.D.

Appellants, Steve F. Montoya, Jr., M.D., and his entities, appealed the dismissal of their claims against Kirk Brewer, M.D. and the summary judgment granted to San Angelo Community Medical Center (SACMC). Dr. Montoya alleged that Dr. Brewer, as Chief of Staff and head of a hospitalist group, conspired with SACMC to engage in anticompetitive actions, including a "whisper campaign" and manipulating patient referrals from the emergency room to favor hospital-affiliated physicians, thereby harming Dr. Montoya's nephrology practice. The lower court dismissed claims against Dr. Brewer under the Texas Citizens Participation Act and Rule 91a, subsequently granting summary judgment to SACMC. Appellants argue these dismissals were erroneous, asserting their claims are valid under Texas antitrust laws, they presented clear and specific evidence, SACMC has direct liability, and the court failed to consider their updated pleadings. Dr. Montoya seeks to reverse the dismissals, citing significant lost revenue estimated between $3,000,000 and $6,500,000 from lost long-term kidney dialysis patients.

AntitrustBusiness DisparagementDefamationTortious InterferenceMonopolizationGroup BoycottEMTALAPatient ReferralsHospitalist ServicesPhysician Privileges
References
49
Case No. 04-19-00538-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2021

William Alec Tisdall, M.D. and William A. Tisdall, M.D., P.A. D/B/A Spine & Joint Pain Specialists v. Thomas Varebrook and Rebecca Varebrook

William Alec Tisdall, M.D., and his medical practice appealed a final judgment stemming from a medical negligence lawsuit initiated by Thomas and Rebecca Varebrook. The jury found Tisdall negligent, awarding substantial damages after Thomas developed a severe septic sacroiliac joint infection following steroid injections administered by Dr. Tisdall, which left him permanently disabled and unable to continue his police career. On appeal, Tisdall argued that the trial court erred by allowing improper jury argument, admitting cumulative and prejudicial independent medical examinations, and denying a motion for mistrial. The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the jury argument was invited error, the medical examination evidence was properly admitted given its probative value and lack of unfair prejudice, and any error regarding the motion for mistrial was unpreserved and, if preserved, cured by the court's instruction to disregard.

Medical negligenceJury verdict appealEvidentiary rulingsImproper jury argumentIndependent medical examinationsMotion for mistrialInstruction to disregardStandard of careCausationDamages award
References
31
Case No. 02-12-00237-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2012

in the Interest of C.M.D. and H.M.A. A/K/A H.M.A., Children

This case concerns an appeal from a post-answer default judgment terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their children, C.M.D. and H.M.A. The parents' attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a motion for continuance due to health issues, which the trial court denied after granting the withdrawal. Mother and Father did not appear for trial, claiming their attorney told them a continuance was granted. The appellate court applied the Craddock test, finding the parents' failure to appear was not intentional or consciously indifferent and that a new trial would not cause delay. Citing due process concerns over parental rights, the court concluded that the family code's dismissal deadline must yield, and consequently, reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Parental Rights TerminationDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialDue ProcessAttorney WithdrawalContinuance DenialCraddock TestAppellate ProcedureFamily LawTexas Court of Appeals
References
26
Case No. 03-04-00446-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2006

in the Matter of D. M.

D.M.'s parents appealed a district court order requiring them to pay $25,000 in restitution for extensive damage caused by their son D.M. when he set fire to his school. The parents argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the restitution amount and that the statutes governing parental liability for juvenile delinquency were unconstitutional, violating the "open courts" provision and due process of the Texas Constitution. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the trial court's order, finding that the statutes were constitutional and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the restitution or finding that the parents failed to demonstrate sufficient good faith efforts to prevent D.M.'s delinquent behavior. The court also found the evidence sufficient regarding the damages and the rehabilitative effect of the restitution.

juvenile justicerestitutionparental liabilitydue processopen courtsTexas Constitutionappellate reviewabuse of discretioncriminal mischiefproperty damage
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 3,840 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