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

George Allibone, M.D. v. Scott Freshour, in His Official Capacity as the Interim Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board Juanita Garner, Investigator of the Texas Medical Board And the Texas Medical Board

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2014

Claim of Angela Page v. Liberty Central School District

The claimant, a school librarian, sought workers' compensation benefits in July 2004 for a disability from toxic mold exposure, leading to an established claim for hypersensitivity and awards for temporary total disability. In 2006, the claim was amended to include multiple chemical sensitivity, and awards for marked disability continued. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) later classified the claimant with a permanent total disability in March 2010, but the Workers' Compensation Board rescinded this finding and referred the matter to an impartial medical specialist, Theodore Them. Them testified that multiple chemical sensitivity is not a medically recognized condition and that the claimant had no causally-related disability, which the Board credited in its December 2012 decision, finding no further causally-related disability and closing the case. The claimant's subsequent appeal of this decision was not perfected, and an application for reconsideration was denied. An April 2013 WCLJ decision to further develop the record on disability was challenged by the employer, who argued the December 2012 Board decision had resolved the issue. The Board panel agreed with the employer in January 2014, precluding further development of the record, a decision which this Court affirmed on appeal, stating the issue of causally-related disability had been decided and the claimant's remedy was a timely appeal of the prior Board decision.

References
2
Case No. ADJ869205 (SAC 0294976) ADJ302322 (SAC 0354178)
Regular
Oct 11, 2010

Patricia Rush vs. The Permanente Medical Group; Athens Administrators Concord

This case involves Patricia Rush claiming cumulative trauma injuries to her knees and back, among other body parts, against The Permanente Medical Group. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the Administrative Law Judge's findings of industrial causation for knee injuries lacked substantial medical evidence, with conflicting and uncertain Qualified Medical Evaluator opinions. The Board rescinded the prior findings and ordered further development of the medical record, suggesting an Agreed Medical Examiner or a court-appointed physician to resolve the causation issue for the knee injuries. The matter is returned to the trial level for a new final determination after the record is further developed on all issues, including injury causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanente Medical GroupAthens Administratorscumulative trauma injurykneesbackshouldershandswristsindustrial causation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Grief Bros.

This employment discrimination case, filed July 1, 2002, involves Michael Sabo (Plaintiff) who alleges constructive discharge based on sexual harassment and claims severe emotional pain and suffering. The Defendant moved for a mental examination of Sabo under Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 and to compel the production of his medical records. Sabo alleged severe humiliation, anxiety, depression, loss of self-esteem, sleeplessness, and weight gain, and admitted to a history of depression, past suicide attempts, and current psychiatric treatment with prescribed medications. The court granted the Defendant's motions, finding that Sabo had placed his mental condition in controversy due to the nature and severity of his claims and his medical history, justifying both the examination and the production of relevant medical records. The court also granted Defendant's request for costs associated with compelling the medical records, but denied the request for costs related to the Rule 35 motion itself, and denied Plaintiff's request for counsel or recording during the examination.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeEmotional DistressMental ExaminationRule 35Medical RecordsDepressionSuicide AttemptsCompensatory Damages
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Standard Insurance Co. v. Gayton

National Standard Insurance Company appealed a judgment awarding workers’ compensation benefits to Chris Gayton. The central issue was the admissibility of medical records containing diagnoses and opinions from treating physicians (Dr. A.R. Fernandez, Dr. Wainscott, and Dr. Corbin) when Gayton had not listed them as expert witnesses in discovery interrogatories. National Standard argued for exclusion based on Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 166b and 215, which require designation of expert witnesses. The court, however, distinguished between testifying experts and nontestifying medical experts whose opinions are part of authenticated medical records. It held that the discovery rules for testifying experts do not preclude the admission of such medical records. Consequently, the judgment awarding benefits to Gayton was affirmed.

Discovery ProceduresExpert TestimonyMedical EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidenceTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureAppellate PracticePersonal Injury LitigationDisability BenefitsTreating Physician's RecordsHearsay Rule Exception
References
10
Case No. 2017-02-0591 / 78125-2017
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2020

Kinsler, Matthew v. Rogers Development and Williams Construction

Matthew Kinsler, an employee, suffered a testicular injury after falling ten feet through a floor. Initially, his employer, Williams Construction, and later the general contractor, Rogers Development, did not provide treatment for this specific injury despite Kinsler's persistent complaints. Rogers Development denied providing a panel of physicians, citing a lack of constant requests and expert medical evidence linking the condition to work. The Court, however, found that Kinsler's early complaints and ongoing intermittent pain, coupled with the absence of a definitive medical opinion, indicated a likelihood of prevailing at trial. Consequently, the Court granted Kinsler's request for medical treatment, ordering Rogers Development to provide a panel of urologists for evaluation and necessary treatment.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingTesticular InjuryPanel of PhysiciansUrologistsEmployer ResponsibilityMedical TreatmentCausationTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
References
1
Case No. NUMBER 13-08-00200-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2009

Valley Baptist Medical Center v. Noe Morales, Jr., as Administrator of the Estate of Paulina Morales

This is a statutory construction case concerning the production of medical records and associated fees. Appellant Valley Baptist Medical Center (VBMC) appealed a district court order compelling it to provide medical records to Appellee Noe Morales, Jr., as administrator of an estate, without charge. Morales sought records under the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, while VBMC asserted its right to charge a reasonable fee under the Texas Health and Safety Code. The appellate court concluded that the statutes could be harmonized, affirming Morales's entitlement to the records but also VBMC's right to charge the statutory fee. The court reversed the trial court's judgment, requiring Morales to pay the $1,143.00 fee.

Statutory ConstructionMedical RecordsFees for RecordsTexas Civil Practices and Remedies CodeTexas Health and Safety CodeHospital LiabilityMandamusAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationHealthcare Law
References
15
Case No. 2022-02-0451
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2022

Qualls, Steven v. Federal Mogul

Mr. Qualls sought medical benefits for an alleged back injury sustained while lifting a heavy box at work on June 24, 2022. Federal Mogul disputed the work-relatedness of the injury, arguing that Mr. Qualls did not report a work injury and medical records indicated his pain began at home two weeks prior. The Court denied Mr. Qualls's request for medical benefits, finding he failed to introduce sufficient medical evidence to prove his condition arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. The decision highlighted that medical records, including those from his primary provider Nurse Jennifer Dyer and orthopedic surgeon Dr. Jeffrey Peterson, did not establish causation.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsCausationBack InjuryExpedited HearingEmployee Burden of ProofMedical EvidenceTennessee LawEmployer DefenseWork-Related Injury
References
1
Case No. 15-25-00167-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Shannon Medical Center v. Michael Sickels and James Christopher Cole

Radiologists Michael Sickels and James Christopher Cole sued Shannon Medical Center, alleging the hospital failed to properly monitor, report, and restrict their exposure to radiation while they treated patients, leading to injuries including cancer and amputations. Shannon Medical Center, a licensed health care provider, moved to dismiss these claims under Section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, arguing that they constituted health care liability claims requiring a statutory expert report. Sickels and Cole denied their claims were health care liability claims, asserting they arose from violations of the Texas Radiation Control Act and Texas Administrative Code, that they were employees of Shannon Medical Center, and that they had satisfied the expert report requirement by providing voluminous medical records. The trial court denied Shannon Medical Center's motion to dismiss, prompting this appeal. Shannon Medical Center argues that the claims satisfy all elements of a health care liability claim, highlighting the substantial nexus to health care, the involvement of medical equipment, and the need for expert testimony. They also contend that Sickels and Cole are not employees of the hospital, but rather independent contractors employed by Shannon Clinic, and that the medical records provided do not meet Chapter 74's expert report requirements for standard of care, breach, and causation, nor was a curriculum vitae served. Shannon Medical Center seeks reversal of the trial court's denial, dismissal of the case with prejudice, and an award of statutory remedies.

Health Care Liability ClaimMedical MalpracticeExpert ReportRadiation ExposureHospital NegligenceTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 74Motion to DismissEmployment StatusIndependent ContractorRadiology
References
36
Case No. ADJ8300605
Regular
Sep 12, 2013

LATOYA ARRINGTON, LATOYA ARRINGTON-ARTIS vs. SUPPORT MEDICAL FOUNDATION, SUTTER HEALTH SACRAMENTO, SUTTER MEDICAL FOUNDATION

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal that was dismissed and denied, respectively, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB found that the petition for reconsideration was improperly taken from interlocutory orders and that removal was not warranted as the defendant failed to show irreparable harm or prejudice. The underlying dispute involves the WCJ's decision to order further development of the medical record after trial, despite the applicant's failure to object to the defendant's declaration of readiness. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report, which found no irreparable harm or significant prejudice to the defendant from the order to develop the record.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmSignificant PrejudiceAOE-COECumulative TraumaDeclaration of Readiness
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 15,555 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