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. 03-09-00594-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2011

Ricky Thomas Lovell v. Texas Department of Insurance Workers' Compensation Division Network, Healthcare Provider, and Travelers Indemnity Company

Appellant Ricky Thomas Lovell sued for claims related to workers’ compensation decisions for himself and his wife. He named several defendants, including Travelers Indemnity Company, Texas Department of Insurance Division of the Texas Workers Compensation Network (TDI), and a Health Care Provider. The trial court granted a plea to the jurisdiction for two other defendants, Hardee Landry and Amerisure, whose claims were severed. Appellant's appeal primarily focused on Travelers' behavior in processing insurance claims, despite also mentioning TDI. The court interpreted his claims as being against Travelers alone. Since claims remained pending against TDI and Health Care Provider, the court ruled the appeal was an unauthorized interlocutory appeal and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationInterlocutory AppealJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionNonsuitPro Se LitigantInsurance ClaimsThird District Court of AppealsAustinTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
2
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. 12-15-00014-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2015

East Texas Medical Center D/B/A East Texas Medical Center Emergency Medical Services v. Jody Delaune Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Crystal Delaune, and as Next Friend of D. D., D. D. and D. A. D., Minors

The appellant, East Texas Medical Center (ETMC), appeals a judgment finding it negligent for failing to train its EMS providers. The core issue revolves around whether ETMC adequately trained its employees on patient restraint protocols in a behavioral emergency, which allegedly led to the death of Crystal Delaune. ETMC argues that there is legally insufficient evidence to establish proximate cause because the EMS providers were previously found not negligent. Additionally, ETMC contends the appellee's expert testimony on the standard of care and breach was conclusory and based on improper inference-stacking. The appellant seeks a reversal of the verdict and a take-nothing judgment.

Negligent TrainingProximate CauseLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceStandard of CareEmergency Medical ServicesAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentEmployee MisconductMedical Negligence DefenseExpert Witness Testimony
References
51
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. 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. 03-17-00666-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2018

Facility Insurance Corporation v. Patients Medical Center

This appeal arises from a medical fee dispute under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act between Facility Insurance Corporation (Carrier) and Patients Medical Center (Provider). The Carrier challenged a trial court's judgment that affirmed a SOAH Decision and Order, mandating the Carrier to pay the Provider $20,495.78 for medical services. The primary issue was whether the administrative law judge (ALJ) incorrectly shifted the burden of proof from the Provider to the Carrier during the contested-case hearing. The Court of Appeals found that the Provider, as the party seeking affirmative relief, bore the burden of proof in the de novo hearing. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case to the Division for new proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Workers' Compensation ActMedical Fee DisputeBurden of ProofAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ)SOAH DecisionJudicial ReviewSubstantial Evidence RuleTexas Department of InsuranceSpinal Cord StimulatorReimbursement Claim
References
25
Case No. ADJ8331259
Regular
Dec 21, 2012

MARIELA GOMEZ vs. PROVIDENCE FARMS, LLC, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, emphasizing that the defendant's failure to properly notify the applicant about changing treating physicians within the Medical Provider Network (MPN) resulted in a denial of necessary medical treatment. This failure to inform the applicant of her rights, particularly regarding physician selection and dispute resolution processes within the MPN, constituted a neglect or refusal to provide reasonable medical treatment, as established by precedent. Consequently, the applicant was permitted to continue receiving treatment outside the MPN until she could begin care with a designated physician within the network.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardProvidence FarmsLLCZenith Insurance CompanyMariela GomezADJ8331259Order Denying ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationMedical TreatmentMedical Provider Network
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas State Board of Examiners v. Texas Medical Ass'n

The Texas Medical Association challenged a rule by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists that permits licensed marriage and family therapists (MFTs) to provide diagnostic assessments. The Medical Association argued that this rule is invalid because the Texas Occupations Code does not authorize MFTs to provide such assessments, reserving this authority primarily for medical licensees. The Therapists Board contended that their authorizing statute, the Texas Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists Act, permits evaluations which encompass diagnostic assessments, and that "diagnose" is a type of "evaluate" in this context. The Supreme Court of Texas agreed with the Therapists Board, concluding that the Therapists Act authorizes MFTs to provide diagnostic assessments as described in the rule, and the Medical Practice Act does not prohibit it. The Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and rendered judgment that the rule is valid.

Marriage and Family TherapyDiagnostic AssessmentTexas Occupations CodeMedical Practice ActScope of PracticeStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawProfessional LicensingMental Health DiagnosisRule Validity
References
42
Case No. 03-17-00352-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2018

Vista Medical Center Hospital Vista Healthcare, Inc. And Surgery Specialty Hospital, Inc.// State Office of Risk Management v. State Office of Risk Management// Vista Medical Center Hospital Vista Healthcare, Inc. And Surgery Specialty Hospital, Inc.

This case involves cross-appeals stemming from a dispute over the appropriate reimbursement for medical services provided by Vista Medical Center Hospital and its affiliates to injured employees covered by the State Office of Risk Management (SORM) under Texas workers’ compensation statutes. The district court had affirmed 23 administrative orders that required SORM to make additional payments to Vista, a decision which SORM challenged on appeal citing insufficient evidence. Vista, in turn, cross-appealed the district court's denial of prejudgment interest. The appellate court found substantial evidence supported the administrative law judges' conclusion that SORM's original reimbursement model was unfair and unreasonable, and that Vista's proposed methodology was valid. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's judgment but modified it to include the prejudgment interest that Vista was statutorily entitled to.

Workers' CompensationMedical ReimbursementAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePrejudgment InterestTexas LawHealthcare ProvidersInsurance DisputesFee Guidelines
References
23
Case No. 13-15-00118-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2015

Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd., D/B/A Corpus Christi Medical Center v. Brenda Martinez

Brenda Martinez, a housekeeper for Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd. (dba Corpus Christi Medical Center), sued her employer after sustaining a shoulder injury during "trash and linen duty," which involved heavy lifting. She alleged negligence, claiming BAHG failed to provide a safe work environment and proper assistance. BAHG moved to dismiss, arguing her claim was a "health care liability claim" (HCLC) under the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA) requiring an expert report. The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding Martinez's claim was not an HCLC as it lacked a substantive relationship with the provision of medical care and instead concerned general workplace safety, not duties specific to a healthcare provider.

Texas Medical Liability ActHealth Care Liability ClaimWorkplace Safety StandardsEmployer NegligenceExpert Report RuleAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationRoss factorsMedical Professional DutiesNon-subscriber Employer
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 16,430 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