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. 03-03-00436-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. 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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jefferies v. McKee Foods Corp.

The employer, McKee Foods Corporation, appealed a trial court's award of 50% permanent partial disability to employee Eva Mae Jefferies in a workers' compensation case. The core dispute was whether the medical impairment rating should be calculated using the Fourth or Fifth Edition of the AMA Guidelines. Dr. Hodges initially rated Jefferies at 8% impairment under the Fourth Edition, which increased to 25% under the Fifth Edition without any change in her medical condition. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in applying the Fifth Edition and held that the Guidelines in effect at the time of maximum medical improvement (Fourth Edition) should apply. The judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawMedical Impairment RatingAMA Guidelines (Fourth Edition)AMA Guidelines (Fifth Edition)Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Vocational DisabilityStatutory InterpretationTennessee Supreme CourtAppellate ReviewReversal and Remand
References
7
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. 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. 13-09-00350-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. 03-05-00032-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2007

Board of Medical Examiners for the State of Texas and Donald W. Patrick, M.D., J.D., as Executive Director of the Board of Medical Examiners for the State of Texas v. Vivian Adaobi O. Nzedu, M.D.

The Texas State Board of Medical Examiners denied Dr. Vivian Nzedu's medical license application, citing her failure to pass the USMLE within the statutorily permitted attempts. The Board included an examination attempt made prior to the effective date of the 'three-attempts statute' (September 1, 1993). The trial court initially sided with Dr. Nzedu, ruling that pre-1993 attempts should not be counted. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that counting pre-statute examination attempts is not an unconstitutional retroactive application of the Medical Practice Act, as it merely draws upon antecedent facts and does not impair a vested right. The court deferred to the Board's reasonable interpretation of the statute. The case was remanded for a determination of attorneys' fees.

Medical LicensingUSMLEStatutory InterpretationRetroactivityVested RightsAdministrative LawTexas Medical Practice ActPhysician LicensureExamination RequirementsAppellate Review
References
24
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
Showing 1-10 of 12,095 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