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. 08-11-00264-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2014

Maria G. Thompson/Luis Marioni, D.C. v. Jaime Stolar, M.D., Alivio Medical Center, Alivio Treatment Centers, P.A. and Luis Marioni, D.C./Maria G. Thompson

This multi-party appeal originated from a medical and chiropractic malpractice lawsuit filed by Maria G. Thompson against Dr. Jaime Stolar, Dr. Luis Marioni, and Alivio Medical Center and Alivio Treatment Centers, P.A. Thompson alleged negligence resulting in severe knee injuries, including infection and fusions, following injections and treatment. A jury found Dr. Stolar and Dr. Marioni negligent, awarding damages. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment against Dr. Marioni due to insufficient evidence of causation but affirmed the judgment against Dr. Stolar. The court also upheld the denial of Thompson's claims regarding damages and apparent agency against Alivio.

Medical MalpracticeChiropractic MalpracticeKnee InjuryKnee InfectionSpontaneous FusionSurgical FusionNegligenceCausationDamages AssessmentApparent Agency
References
48
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. 13-09-00350-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2010

Gulf Coast Medical Center, LLC, Tony Todd, Crna, Dan Madsen, M.D. and South Texas Medical Clinics, P.A. v. Jacqueline Temple and Marcus Banks, Individually and as Representatives of the Estate of Markasia Banks, a Minor Child

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
Case No. 2016-08-1486
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2018

Nance, Amy v. JCSD Emergency Medical Group d/b/a Medic One Response

Ms. Nance, an emergency medical technician, injured her left upper extremity while moving a patient. After conservative treatment, she was diagnosed with cubital tunnel syndrome and later recommended for a cervical spine evaluation by Dr. Cole. Medic One denied the requested benefits, claiming misrepresentation and non-work-related activity. The Court found Ms. Nance likely to prevail for medical benefits, ordering Medic One to authorize a cervical spine evaluation and allow her to select a specialist. However, Ms. Nance was not found eligible for temporary disability benefits due to insufficient medical proof of disability.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsCubital Tunnel SyndromeCervical Spine EvaluationMedical MisrepresentationCausal ConnectionExpedited HearingPermanent ImpairmentTreating Physician
References
3
Case No. 03-03-00436-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2004

Texas Medical Association Texas AFL-CLO Patient Advocates of Texas Allen J. Meril, M.D. And L. E. Richey v. Texas Workers Compensation Commission Richard F. Reynolds, Executive Director And Texas Association of Business

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed a district court's judgment upholding the validity of the 2002 medical fee guidelines promulgated by the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission. Appellants, including the Texas Medical Association and Texas AFL-CIO, challenged the guidelines on substantive grounds (unlawful delegation of power to CMS and arbitrary/capricious rulemaking) and procedural grounds (failure to consult the Medical Advisory Committee and inadequate reasoned justification/public notice). The appellate court found no unlawful delegation of power, that the Commission's decision was not arbitrary and capricious, and that the Commission substantially complied with the reasoned-justification requirement of the APA. The court also found no requirement to consult the Medical Advisory Committee for initial fee guidelines and that a new public notice and comment period was not required.

Workers' Compensation LawMedical ReimbursementFee GuidelinesAdministrative Procedure ActAgency RulemakingDelegation DoctrineArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewTexas LawHealth Policy
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2013

Matter of Madigan v. ARR ELS

In 1994, the claimant sustained a low back injury during employment as a machinist, leading to workers' compensation benefits. Liability for the case was transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases in 2003. Due to poor surgical outcomes, the claimant has been on pain medication, including oxycontin, since at least 2007, with doses escalating. A consultant for the Special Fund questioned the necessity of the increased medication, prompting a hearing. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge ruled that the pain medications should continue, with the Special Fund covering the costs, until new Board guidelines or physician recommendations advised otherwise. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, citing that their Medical Treatment Guidelines for chronic pain were still in draft form at the time. The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the guidelines were not yet in effect at the time of the Board's ruling and that the Board's interim guidance was rational.

Workers' CompensationPain ManagementOpioid PrescriptionsMedical Treatment GuidelinesSpecial FundReopened CasesLumbar InjuryOxycontinAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cummins v. North Medical Family Physicians

A claimant sustained a work-related back injury and sought continued medical treatment, which was initially authorized. Disputes over authorization led the claimant to retain an attorney. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge authorized continued medical treatment but denied counsel fees, stating no "money passing" occurred. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this decision. The claimant appealed, arguing the Board unconstitutionally applied Workers’ Compensation Law § 24, misinterpreted the statute regarding fee payment from medical benefits, and abused its discretion. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that counsel fees must be paid from "compensation," defined as a money allowance, and medical benefits are not considered "compensation" for this purpose, thus finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationCounsel FeesAttorney FeesMedical TreatmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawLienCompensation DefinitionAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. M2019-01860-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2020

Jeffrey Clay Davis v. Vanderbilt University Medical Center

A medical center employee sued for retaliatory discharge under the Tennessee Public Protection Act, alleging termination for refusing to remain silent about the medical center's failure to implement workplace violence policies in compliance with OSHA guidelines. The trial court initially granted the medical center's motion to dismiss, asserting that OSHA guidelines were non-mandatory and did not constitute 'illegal activity.' However, the Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal. The appellate court found that the employee's complaint sufficiently alleged a violation of OSHA's general duty clause, which applies even in the absence of specific regulations, and implicated important public policy concerns regarding workplace safety. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

WhistleblowerRetaliatory DischargeWorkplace ViolenceOSHA General Duty ClausePublic PolicyEmployment LawOccupational Safety and Health ActTennessee Public Protection ActEmployer LiabilityWorker Safety
References
30
Case No. 526425
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2018

Matter of Gasparro v. Hospice of Dutchess County

Mary Ann Gasparro, a claimant with a permanent partial disability from a 1995 work injury, moved to Nevada. In 2016, her employer's workers' compensation carrier objected to payments for topical pain relief products, LidoPro and Terocin patches, prescribed by a Nevada pain management specialist. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling, deciding that New York's Medical Treatment Guidelines apply to out-of-state treatment for nonresident claimants, a departure from its prior decisions. The Board found the prescribed medications were not in accordance with the guidelines due to concomitant use and duration. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, deeming its change in course rational and its application of the guidelines to out-of-state treatment reasonable. The court concluded that the Board's finding of medical necessity and non-compliance with guidelines was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationMedical Treatment GuidelinesOut-of-State Medical CareNonresident ClaimantsPain ManagementTopical Pain ReliefLidoProTerocin PatchesAppellate DivisionBoard Reversal
References
12
Case No. 2-06-016-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2007

Shioleno Industries, Inc. AND Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. and Columbia North Texas Subsidiary, GP, LLC D/B/A Medical Center of Arlington v. Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. and Columbia North Texas Subsidiary, GP, LLC D/B/A Medical Center of Arlington AND Shioleno Industries, Inc.

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
Showing 1-10 of 12,821 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