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. 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. 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. 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. 03-05-00189-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation v. Insurance Council of Texas, Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Envoy Medical Systems, Inc.

The Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation (the "Division") promulgated a rule (28 Tex. Admin. Code § 133.309) to create a less expensive alternative review procedure for workers' compensation claims concerning the necessity of medical treatment. The Insurance Council of Texas, Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Envoy Medical Systems, L.P. (the "Joint Appellees") challenged the rule's validity in a declaratory judgment action. The district court granted the Joint Appellees' motion for summary judgment, declaring the rule invalid. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the rule was not in harmony with relevant governing statutes that allowed for judicial review of medical necessity disputes.

Workers' Compensation LawAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentMedical Necessity DisputesAlternative Dispute ResolutionAgency Rule ValidityTexas Court of Appeals
References
15
Case No. 11-03-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2005

Ray Warren, M.D. and Texas Medical Images, Inc. v. KPH-Consolidation, Inc., D/B/A Columbia Kingwood Medical Center

Ray Warren, M.D. and Texas Medical Images, Inc. (Warren) appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to KPH-Consolidation, Inc. d/b/a Columbia Kingwood Medical Center (Kingwood). The dispute arose from Warren's failure to pay rent on two lease agreements, leading Kingwood to sue for breach of contract. The trial court granted Kingwood's motion for summary judgment and ruled against Warren on his counterclaim regarding a breach of an Expense Sharing Agreement and breach of warranty. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Kingwood had proven its breach-of-contract claim and that Warren's counterclaim failed as a matter of law, partly due to an 'as is' clause in the Equipment Lease. The appellate court also upheld the denial of Warren's motion for a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion.

summary judgmentbreach of contractlease agreementequipment leasecounterclaimbreach of warranty"as is" clauseappellate reviewabuse of discretionTexas law
References
8
Case No. 2016-06-0432
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2016

McDade, Michael v. IGC Protection

Michael McDade, an employee, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking temporary disability and medical benefits for a dislocated shoulder injury sustained from a fall in a box truck while working for IGC Protection. IGC Protection, the employer, denied the claim, asserting the injury was not work-related or was idiopathic, and disputed McDade's inability to work. The Court found McDade likely to prove his injury occurred within the course and scope of employment, thus entitling him to reasonable and necessary medical treatment from Dr. James Rubright. However, his claim for temporary disability benefits was denied because no physician completely took him off work, and IGC offered accommodated work, contradicting his subjective belief of an inability to perform duties while on pain medication. The Court ordered IGC Protection to provide continuing medical treatment and pay past medical costs, while denying temporary disability benefits.

shoulder injuryunwitnessed fallworkers' compensation claimmedical benefitstemporary disabilitycourse and scope of employmentidiopathic defensemedical causationauthorized treating physicianwork restrictions
References
12
Case No. 2025-50-1067
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2025

Fults, William v. Gant Oil Company, Inc.

William Fults, an 80-year-old employee, sought authorization for a total knee replacement following a work injury on January 24, 2024, at Gant Oil Company, Inc. The central dispute involved whether the work accident primarily aggravated his pre-existing arthritis, necessitating the surgery, as argued by his expert, Dr. Robert Landsberg, and disputed by the authorized physician, Dr. Jeffrey Peterson. After an expedited hearing, the Court evaluated the differing medical testimonies and Mr. Fults's credible account of his knee condition prior to the injury. The Court concluded that the work incident did aggravate his pre-existing osteoarthritis, and this aggravation, along with subsequent treatment, primarily caused the need for a total knee replacement. Consequently, the Court granted his request for medical benefits, ordering Gant Oil Company to cover all future reasonable and necessary treatment, including the total knee replacement.

Workers' CompensationKnee InjuryTotal Knee ReplacementPre-existing ConditionAggravationCausationMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingOrthopedic SurgeryExpert Testimony
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 16,276 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