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. 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
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. 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. 2019-05-0371
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2021

Walls, Bob v. United Technologies Corp.

This case involves a dispute over medical benefits sought by Bob Walls (Employee) against United Technologies Corp. (Employer) following a work-related injury. Two authorized physicians recommended left hip surgery for the Employee, but the Employer's utilization review provider and the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Medical Director recommended non-certification. The trial court ordered the Employer to authorize the treatment, finding the Employer failed to rebut the presumption of medical necessity, but denied attorney's fees. The Appeals Board affirmed the medical benefits order but vacated the denial of attorney's fees, remanding the case for reconsideration of that issue.

Medical Benefits DisputeUtilization ReviewAttorney's FeesMedical Necessity PresumptionHip SurgeryGluteus Medius TearOsteoarthritisAppellate ReviewSettlement Agreement EnforcementPhysician Recommendations
References
14
Case No. 07-CV-6149L
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2010

Johnson v. THE UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER

Plaintiffs Keith Johnson, M.D., and Laura Schmidt, R.N., filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act against the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital. They alleged defendants defrauded the government by submitting false claims for anesthesiology services under Medicare/Medicaid, claiming physician supervision when it was absent. Johnson also alleged retaliatory discharge for reporting violations, and Schmidt claimed retaliation for refusing to alter medical records. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing failure to plead fraud with particularity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Johnson cross-moved to amend the complaint to add claims of libel per se and prima facie tort against Dr. Lustik. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege that any fraudulent bills were actually presented to Medicare/Medicaid. The retaliation claims were also dismissed because the complaints were not made in furtherance of a qui tam action. Johnson's motion to amend was denied as frivolous and in bad faith. Defendants' request for sanctions was denied without prejudice.

False Claims ActQui TamMedicare FraudMedicaid FraudRetaliatory DischargePleading StandardsRule 9(b)Motion to DismissLeave to AmendLibel
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beth Israel Medical Center v. 1199/S.E.I.U. United Healthcare Workers East

Beth Israel Medical Center (BIMC) petitioned to vacate an arbitration award concerning a labor dispute over wage differentials for registered nurses on flex-time schedules at its Kings Highway Division. Local 1199, the nurses' union, moved to confirm the award. The dispute arose when BIMC discontinued pro-rata wage differentials for day shift nurses, arguing a 2002 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) adopted a different plan. The arbitrator found for Local 1199, concluding the 2002 MOA did not alter the longstanding practice established in prior MOAs. BIMC argued the arbitrator exceeded his power and violated public policy; however, the court denied BIMC's petition and granted Local 1199's motion, affirming the arbitrator's decision that drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement.

Labor DisputeArbitration AwardWage DifferentialsCollective Bargaining AgreementFlex-Time ScheduleRegistered NursesNew YorkFederal CourtLMRAContract Interpretation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 1992

Medical Designs, Inc. v. Medical Technology, Inc.

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. 13-10-00247-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2010

Unit Texas Drilling, LLC, Unit Drilling Company and Cliff Welker v. Caesar Morales, Jr. and Rhonda Morales

This memorandum opinion from the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals addresses an appeal by Unit Texas Drilling, LLC, Unit Drilling Company, and Cliff Welker. They sought to reverse a trial court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration in a personal injury suit filed by Caesar Morales, Jr. and Rhonda Morales. The Moraleses' claims arose from Caesar's on-the-job injury while working for Unit Texas, a non-subscriber to the Texas Workers Compensation Act, and concerned a mandatory 'Occupational Injury Benefit Plan' with an arbitration clause. The appellate court found that the Federal Arbitration Act applied, the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, and rejected the appellees' defenses, including arguments related to the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Texas Labor Code provisions, unconscionability, and failure of consideration. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActTexas Workers Compensation ActNon-subscriber EmployerMotion to Compel ArbitrationUnconscionability DefenseMcCarran-Ferguson ActIllusory PromiseContractual DisputesEmployment Law
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Luca v. United Nations Organization

A former United Nations security officer filed a lawsuit against the United Nations and eight of its officials, alleging breach of contract, forgery, negligence, civil rights violations, and denial of medical benefits. The plaintiff claimed the U.N. failed to reimburse him for 1988 taxes, issued a fraudulent final pay statement with a forged signature, and unlawfully denied him continued health insurance coverage after his resignation. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting immunity under international and federal law. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for default judgment and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety with prejudice, finding that the United Nations and its officials were immune from the action for acts performed in their official capacities.

ImmunityInternational OrganizationsUnited NationsDiplomatic ImmunitySovereign ImmunityBreach of ContractEmployment LawTax ReimbursementMedical BenefitsOfficial Capacity
References
10
Case No. 2017-08-1148
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2018

Ogelsby, Edward v, United Parcel Service, Inc.

Mr. Edward Oglesby, a plant engineering mechanic, sought medical and temporary disability benefits for an injury sustained on September 4, 2017, while attempting a live tracking repair on a conveyor belt at United Parcel Service. Inc. (UPS). His right arm was pulled into the unloader during the repair. UPS denied the claim, asserting Mr. Oglesby violated a safety rule by failing to power off the machine. However, the Court found UPS failed to establish it would likely prevail on its defense, as UPS's own rules permitted discretionary live conveyor repairs and Mr. Oglesby acted consistently with his training. Consequently, the Court granted Mr. Oglesby medical benefits, ordering UPS to pay incurred medical treatment and provide a panel of physicians. Temporary disability benefits were denied at this time due to insufficient evidence regarding the duration of his disability, though the Court noted Mr. Oglesby had not yet returned to work. A scheduling hearing is set for June 11, 2018.

Medical BenefitsTemporary DisabilitySafety Rule ViolationEmployer DefenseEmployee MisconductConveyor Belt InjuryTennessee LawStatutory InterpretationBurden of ProofWorkplace Accident
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 13,613 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