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. 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. 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. 14-10-00381-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2011

Younan Nowzaradan, M.D. v. Shirley H. Ryans

This interlocutory appeal addresses whether a gross-negligence claim in a medical malpractice suit requires a separate expert report under the Texas Medical Liability Act. Appellant Younan Nowzaradan, M.D., contended that Appellee Shirley H. Ryans's gross-negligence claim was a distinct cause of action necessitating its own expert report, which he argued was not provided. The court, however, clarified that ordinary negligence and gross negligence are not separate causes of action but are inextricably intertwined, with gross negligence representing a heightened degree of ordinary negligence. Therefore, the expert report submitted for the ordinary negligence claim was deemed sufficient to cover the gross-negligence allegations. The trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss was affirmed.

Medical MalpracticeGross NegligenceOrdinary NegligenceExpert ReportTexas Medical Liability ActInterlocutory AppealStandard of CareCausationPunitive DamagesCivil Practice and Remedies Code
References
36
Case No. 12-02-00314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2002

in Re: Steven L. Hodge D/B/A H & M Farms

Steven Hodge d/b/a H&M Farms (Hodge) sought a writ of mandamus to vacate a trial court order granting deemed admissions against him in a workers' compensation death benefits lawsuit. The underlying suit was initiated by Janet Fitts and Pam Gill, as next friends for the minor children of the deceased, Billy McClintock. The trial court, citing prior stipulations made by Hodge in an earlier related case, deemed admissions against Hodge, believing he was collaterally estopped from denying these facts. The Court of Appeals, however, determined that the trial court abused its discretion by evaluating the merits of Hodge's denials in a motion to deem admissions, as Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 198 only permits such actions for untimely, evasive, or incomplete responses. Concluding that Hodge lacked an adequate remedy by appeal given that the deemed admissions would prevent him from presenting any defense, the appellate court conditionally granted the writ, ordering the trial court to vacate its admissions order.

MandamusDeemed AdmissionsDiscovery AbuseCollateral EstoppelTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureWorkers' Compensation Death BenefitsAbuse of DiscretionAdequate Remedy by AppealTrial Court ErrorPrior Stipulations
References
8
Case No. W2013-01540-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2014

William H. Fleming v. Tejinder Saini, M.D. and Healthquest Clinic

This appeal concerns the denial of a post-judgment motion regarding court costs in a civil warrant lawsuit. Plaintiff William H. Fleming sued Tejinder Saini, M.D., and Healthquest Clinic for negligence related to unreturned medical paperwork in a workers' compensation matter. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit for non-compliance with the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act and assessed court costs against Fleming. Fleming filed two motions to alter or amend the judgment, arguing he should not bear costs as he ultimately retrieved his documents. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the second post-judgment motion untimely and no abuse of discretion in denying the request to reconsider court costs.

Medical MalpracticePost-Judgment MotionCourt CostsAppeal TimelinessDismissal with PrejudiceWorkers' CompensationNegligenceTennessee Rules of Civil ProcedureTennessee Rules of Appellate ProcedureAbuse of Discretion
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 4,563 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