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. 2016-02-0027
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2016

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Kimberly Gray, an employee, sought an expedited hearing regarding her entitlement to medical treatment and a second opinion for her right elbow injury sustained while working for Fresenius Medical Care. She had been treating with Dr. Michael Bratton, who placed her at maximum medical improvement (MMI) on August 17, 2015, and determined a 1% permanent partial impairment. Ms. Gray requested a second opinion due to continued pain, but Fresenius Medical Care refused, stating there was no statutory basis requiring them to provide it without a physician's referral. The Court found that Ms. Gray was not entitled to the requested relief as she did not present sufficient evidence to likely prevail at a hearing on the merits, and her request for additional medical benefits was denied.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsSecond OpinionMMIPermanent Partial ImpairmentRight Elbow InjuryOrthopedic SurgeonStatutory InterpretationBurden of Proof
References
3
Case No. 2022-08-1051
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2023

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Ms. Barbara Foulks suffered a compensable injury and was initially treated by Dr. John Lochemes, who deemed her at maximum medical improvement. She subsequently received treatment from Dr. Michael Cody Scarbrough for chronic pain and complex regional pain syndrome symptoms. The employer argued Ms. Foulks was conclusively at maximum medical improvement, as her treatment was for pain only. However, the Court found Dr. Scarbrough's treatment to be active, involving physical therapy and other interventions aimed at functional improvement, not solely pain management. Consequently, the Court ruled that Ms. Foulks was not at maximum medical improvement under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(1)(E) and reinstated her temporary total disability benefits, applying an overpayment credit.

Temporary Total DisabilityMaximum Medical ImprovementComplex Regional Pain SyndromePain ManagementActive Medical TreatmentFunctional ImprovementPhysical TherapyNerve BlockGait InstabilityOverpayment Credit
References
3
Case No. 2015-07-0040
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2016

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Jerry Choate, a truck driver, sustained neck, back, and head injuries in an August 2014 work accident. He sought permanent partial disability, additional temporary total disability (TTD), and mileage reimbursement. The employer, Revel Logging, LLC, disputed these claims and requested reimbursement for a TTD overpayment. Medical evaluations indicated no permanent impairment and set the maximum medical improvement (MMI) date at December 9, 2014. The Court denied Mr. Choate's claims for permanent partial disability, additional TTD, and mileage reimbursement, concluding his injuries did not result in permanent disability and his legal residence was within the qualifying mileage for providers. However, the Court granted Mr. Choate future medical benefits and denied Revel's request for TTD overpayment reimbursement, citing employer oversight and potential hardship to Mr. Choate.

Workers' CompensationDisability BenefitsMedical BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityMileage ReimbursementOverpayment ReimbursementPost-traumatic HeadachesMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Neurosurgeon Evaluation
References
9
Case No. 2-06-016-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2007

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

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. 03-17-00357-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2017

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

George Allibone, M.D., appealed the denial of his petition for a protective order against an administrative subpoena issued by the Texas Medical Board. The subpoena sought patient medical and billing records for an investigation into complaints against Allibone. He contended the trial court erred by failing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law and by abusing its discretion in finding the subpoena reasonable and relevant. The appellate court found Allibone waived his complaint regarding missing findings. It also concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion, citing the Board's need for complete records for investigation and Allibone's failure to prove the unconstitutionality of the statute requiring compliance. The trial court's order was affirmed.

Medical Board InvestigationAdministrative SubpoenaPhysician RecordsConstitutional RightsDue ProcessJudicial Review of Agency ActionAbuse of DiscretionFourth AmendmentTexas LawProfessional Licensing
References
50
Case No. 02-22-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2023

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 1992

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Medical Designs, Inc. (MDI) against Medical Technology, Inc. (MTI) and Gary Bledsoe, asserting infringement of two patents: U.S. Patent No. 4,407,276 and U.S. Patent Des. 269,379. The defendants counterclaimed, arguing patent invalidity and unenforceability. The court found that claims 1-7 of the ’276 patent were anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by prior art, and claims 1-8 were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Furthermore, the entire ’276 patent was deemed unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by MDI's patent attorney for intentionally omitting material prior art from the Patent and Trademark Office. While the ’379 design patent was found valid and enforceable, MDI failed to prove infringement. Consequently, the court awarded attorneys' fees and damages to MTI and Bledsoe against MDI and Floyd Hutson.

Patent infringementUtility patentDesign patentPatent invalidityPatent unenforceabilityPrior artObviousnessAnticipationInequitable conductAttorney's fees
References
20
Case No. 2016-08-0935
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2017

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Giles Cole, a truck driver for YRC, Inc., filed an Expedited Hearing Request for additional medical and temporary disability benefits due to alleged injuries from a truck accident on September 23, 2015. He claimed head, back, and leg injuries. YRC contended he failed to establish the need for further treatment related to the injury and failed to establish entitlement to temporary disability benefits. The court found that Mr. Cole did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he is likely to prevail on the merits, specifically lacking expert medical opinion connecting his alleged injuries to the need for further medical treatment or his inability to work. Dr. Randolph, the authorized physician, had released him at maximum medical improvement, stating his complaints were not accident-related. Therefore, the court denied his request for further medical and temporary disability benefits at this time, but allowed him to contact YRC for a follow-up with Dr. Randolph.

Truck AccidentHead InjuryBack InjuryLeg InjuryMedical Benefits DenialTemporary Disability Benefits DenialCausation DisputeMedical OpinionAuthorized Treating PhysicianMaximum Medical Improvement
References
4
Case No. 2021-06-0129
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2021

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Dustin Morton, an ironworker, sustained a work injury in January 2020 when a heavy panel struck his head and left shoulder, leading to a fall and a right knee injury. Initial treatment by Dr. David Moore focused on the knee, culminating in surgery and an eight-percent impairment rating. After reaching maximum medical improvement, Mr. Morton developed neck, upper back, and arm pain, which he attributed to the original accident, and sought further medical treatment. The employer, Morsey Constructors, challenged the causation and the request for additional treatment without medical proof. However, the Court ruled in an expedited hearing that medical causation is not required at this interlocutory stage and found Mr. Morton likely to prevail on the merits, thereby ordering Morsey or its carrier to authorize treatment for his neck, upper back, and arm symptoms.

Worker's CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsNeck InjuryUpper Back PainArm NumbnessKnee InjuryMedical CausationOrthopedic SurgeryMaximum Medical Improvement
References
3
Case No. 13-09-00350-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2010

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Appellants, Gulf Coast Medical Center, LLC, Tony Todd, CRNA, Dan Madsen, M.D., and South Texas Medical Clinics, P.A., appealed the trial court's denial of their motions to dismiss. The underlying suit was filed by appellees Jacqueline Temple and Marcus Banks, alleging negligence in the care and treatment of their deceased minor child, Markasia Banks. The core issue on appeal was the appellees' failure to timely serve an expert medical report as required by the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Court of Appeals determined that the appellees' claims were 'health care liability claims' and that the expert report was indeed untimely, and that an abatement due to a failure to provide medical authorization did not extend the deadline. The court also affirmed the constitutionality of the expert report requirement. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, granted the appellants' motions to dismiss, and remanded the case for the award of attorney's fees and costs to the appellants.

Health Care Liability ClaimExpert Medical ReportMotion to DismissTimeliness of ReportAbatementMedical MalpracticeNegligenceDue ProcessTexas ConstitutionAppellate Review
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 12,270 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