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. 01-17-00146-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2019

Michael Fallon, M.D. v. the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson as Officer for the Public Information for the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Michael Fallon, M.D. sued the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA) after they denied his request for certain information, claiming it was held by an affiliated private entity, the MD Anderson Physicians Network. The trial court dismissed Fallon's suit. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Fallon's mandamus claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the Cancer Center had a right of access to the Physicians Network's records, thereby making the information "public information" under the PIA. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Fallon's declaratory judgment claim, stating that the Declaratory Judgments Act does not waive sovereign immunity for such claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Public Information ActSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentMandamusGovernmental BodyNon-profit OrganizationPhysicians NetworkMedical Peer ReviewSummary JudgmentPlea to Jurisdiction
References
56
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06751
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2015

All State Flooring Distributors, L.P. v. MD Floors, LLC

Plaintiff, All State Flooring Distributors, L.P., initiated legal action against MD Floors, LLC, and Michael Savino to recover $48,188.50 for wood flooring delivered. MD Floors, in turn, filed counterclaims asserting that it incurred additional labor costs due to faulty flooring and was subjected to double-billing. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, citing both a procedural default and the presence of triable issues of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment, while correcting the Supreme Court's finding of a procedural default. The Appellate Division concurred that substantial triable issues of fact existed regarding partial payments, attorney's fees, and the alleged personal guaranty by Savino, and also affirmed the existence of triable issues concerning MD Floors' counterclaims for additional labor costs and double-billing.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractPersonal GuarantyCounterclaimsProcedural DefaultAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactAttorney's FeesCommercial LawContract Dispute
References
3
Case No. 01-18-00221-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2018

University of Texas-MD Anderson Cancer Center v. Rachel Phillips

Rachel Phillips sued her employer, The University of Texas – MD Anderson Cancer Center (UTMDA), for sex discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). UTMDA appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction, arguing Phillips did not timely exhaust administrative remedies by filing a TWC complaint within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory acts. Phillips contended the 180-day period began upon her formal termination. The appellate court ruled that the 180-day period commenced when Phillips was informed of UTMDA's intent to terminate her employment, not when the termination decision came to fruition. As her complaint was filed more than 180 days after this notification, her claims were jurisdictionally barred. Consequently, the court vacated the trial court's order and dismissed the case.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationRetaliationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActSovereign ImmunitySubject-Matter JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesTimeliness of ComplaintAccrual of ActionPlea to the Jurisdiction
References
26
Case No. E2019-01211-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2020

Travis Kanipe v. Pragnesh Patel MD

Travis Kanipe sued Dr. Pragnesh Patel for healthcare liability following his mother, Sandra Kanipe's, death from an undiagnosed aortic dissection. After an initial jury verdict favored Dr. Patel, the Trial Court granted Kanipe a new trial, citing Dr. Patel's impermissible blame-shifting to non-party nurses without pleading comparative fault. A second trial resulted in a verdict for Mr. Kanipe. Dr. Patel appealed, challenging the new trial order, the admission of evidence regarding his voluntary surrender of hospital privileges, and the Trial Court's role as the thirteenth juror. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's decisions, finding no abuse of discretion in granting a new trial, admitting the contested evidence with a limiting instruction, and concluding that the Trial Court properly exercised its role as the thirteenth juror.

Healthcare liabilityMedical negligenceComparative faultBlame-shiftingNew trial motionPeer review privilegeOriginal source exceptionExpert witness testimonyJury verdictAppellate review
References
15
Case No. 01-18-00242-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2019

Nephrology Leaders and Associates and M. Atiq Dada, MD v. American Renal Associates LLC

Nephrology Leaders and Associates and M. Atiq Dada, M.D. (collectively, "Nephrology") appealed a trial court's order that temporarily sealed certain documents from a subpoena issued to American Renal Associates, LLC. Nephrology argued the trial court abused its discretion by setting the motion for a hearing sua sponte and that evidence was insufficient to support the order. American Renal countered that Nephrology lacked standing to appeal. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas agreed, concluding that Nephrology had not demonstrated a redressable injury, which is a constitutional prerequisite for standing in Texas. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, affirming that statutory provisions cannot enlarge constitutional jurisdiction.

Appellate ProcedureSubject Matter JurisdictionStandingSealing OrderTemporary SealingDiscovery SubpoenaAbuse of DiscretionTrial Court OrderConstitutional StandingJudicial Review
References
27
Case No. 02-22-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2023

BioTE Medical, LLC v. John Carrozzella, MD, JCMD Medical Services, Inc., Dan Deneui, and Terri Deneui

This case addresses whether a contractual "residual benefit" clause, requiring a post-termination fee for using a competing treatment method, constitutes a covenant not to compete under Texas law. Appellant BioTE Medical, LLC, licensed a pellet-based bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT) method. Appellee JCMD Medical Services, Inc., a former customer, terminated its agreement and began using a competitor's BHRT without paying the residual-benefit fee. BioTE Medical sued JCMD for breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment to JCMD, finding the clause unenforceable either as a noncompete or a violation of public policy. The appellate court reversed, holding that the residual-benefit clause is not a covenant not to compete as it does not restrict JCMD from competing with BioTE Medical, but rather from using a competitor's product. The court also declined to invalidate the clause on uncodified public policy grounds, deferring to the Legislature's policy determinations.

Contract lawCovenants Not to Compete ActResidual benefit clausePublic policyBioidentical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT)Breach of contractSummary judgmentAppellate reviewTexas lawBusiness and Commerce Code
References
33
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03582
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2021

Mowla v. Baozhu Wu

Plaintiff MD Rafiquil Mowla was injured while working at the single-family residence owned by defendant Baozhu Wu. While climbing an extension ladder to access a garage roof to clean brick columns, a brick column crumbled, causing him to fall and sustain personal injuries. Mowla subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 200, as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim but denied dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The defendant appealed this denial. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the defendant failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action, specifically by not demonstrating that the dangerous condition did not exist for a sufficient length of time to allow for discovery and remedy, or that the condition was latent.

personal injurypremises liabilityladder falldefective conditionhomeowner liabilitysummary judgment motionLabor Law § 200common-law negligenceduty to maintain propertyactual notice
References
18
Case No. ADJ15819265
Regular
May 02, 2025

MD HOSSAIN, SALMA BASHAR vs. ALI'S ENTERPRISES, INC., TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Salma Bashar, widow of deceased Md Hossain, sought reconsideration of a WCJ's Findings and Order which concluded that the decedent's death was not work-related. She contended that the WCJ erred by relying on the opinions of PQME Gerald Weingarten, M.D., asserting they lacked substantial medical evidence regarding causation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition, finding Dr. Weingarten's opinions incomplete and speculative due to an inadequate record, including missing medical history and the autopsy report not being admitted into evidence. Consequently, the Board rescinded the prior order and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings, recommending additional development of the medical record.

AOE/COEPQMEsubstantial medical evidencecausationreconsiderationrescinddevelop the recordWCJdeath benefitsindustrial injury
References
22
Case No. ADJ10955890
Regular
Dec 21, 2018

JONATHAN ELFORD vs. MD OFFICE SOLUTIONS INC., AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by MD Office Solutions Inc. (Liberty Mutual/American Economy Insurance Company) challenging a prior workers' compensation award. The defendant alleges a mutual mistake regarding insurance coverage for the applicant's March 9, 2015 injury, claiming they were not the liable carrier. However, the Board dismissed the petition as untimely, noting it was filed 61 days after the award was served. The Board suggested the defendant should instead file a petition to set aside the award based on good cause, such as mutual mistake, and directed the matter back to the trial level.

Petition for ReconsiderationStipulations with Request for AwardMutual Mistake of FactWorkers' Compensation CoverageLiable CarrierTimelinessDismissedPetition to Set Aside AwardLabor Code Section 5803Good Cause
References
2
Case No. ADJ7745791, ADJ7745809
Regular
Jan 14, 2014

JUAN NAVA vs. OWENS CORNING, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a previous order that intended to dismiss MD Tox Laboratories' lien. The WCAB found that MD Tox Laboratories had not actually filed a lien in the subject cases, nor were they a party at the time of the lien conference, thus rendering the dismissal order invalid. Since no lien was filed, MD Tox Laboratories was not subject to lien activation fees or obligated to appear at the conference. The WCAB clarified that MD Tox Laboratories may file a lien if it is still timely and accompanied by the proper fees.

MD Tox LaboratoriesPetition for Reconsiderationlien activation feelien conferenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardnonpartyElectronic Adjudication Management Systemlien claimantLabor CodeWCAB Rule
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 27 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