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. 14-07-00925-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2009

Latoya Basey v. Davita Inc., D/B/A Total Renal Care, Nelda Boatwright and Fresenius Medical Care Holding Inc., D/B/A Fresenius Medical Care North America D/B/A Northwest Houston Dialysis, and Biomedical Applications of Texas, Inc.

Latoya Basey appealed a take-nothing summary judgment in a disability discrimination and tort case against her former employer, DaVita, Inc., and potential employer, Fresenius Medical Care Holding, Inc. Basey claimed DaVita fired her after a work-related back injury and that Fresenius refused to hire her due to her injury and prior discrimination charge. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying grounds. The appellate court affirmed, finding Basey failed to provide evidence of disability for her discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims, and lacked evidence of causation for her retaliation claims.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationEmployment LawCausal LinkTexas Court of AppealsADAFailure to AccommodateEmployment Termination
References
11
Case No. 13-15-00024-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2015

Maria Zamarripa, as Temporary Guardian of the Estates of R. F. R. and R. J. R., Minors, and Olga Flores, as Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Yolanda Iris Flores v. Bay Area Health Care Group, Ltd. D/B/A Corpus Christi Medical Center, Hidalgo County EMS, and Hidalgo County Emergency Medical Service Foundation

This case involves an appeal by Maria Zamarripa and Olga Flores (Appellants) against Bay Area Health Care Group, Hidalgo County EMS, and Hidalgo County Emergency Medical Service Foundation (Appellees). The Appellants are challenging the trial court's orders that granted the Appellees' motions to dismiss. The core of the appeal centers on the qualifications of Nurse Spears as an expert witness and the sufficiency of expert reports regarding the standard of care, its breach, and causation in a medical malpractice claim involving Yolanda Iris Flores's injuries and death from placenta accreta and pre-term labor. Appellants argue that Nurse Spears is qualified, the expert reports adequately connect CCMC's alleged breach of care to the injuries, and alternatively, they are entitled to amend the reports. They pray for the reversal of the trial court's dismissal orders and a remand for further proceedings.

Medical MalpracticePlacenta AccretaPre-term LaborMedical NegligenceStandard of CareCausationExpert Witness QualificationsHospital LiabilityEmergency Medical Services (EMS)Wrongful Death
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

East Texas Medical Center Regional Health Care System v. Reddic

Reddic, a non-patient, slipped on a wet rug at East Texas Medical Center's reception desk, leading to a lawsuit against ETMC. ETMC moved to dismiss, arguing the claim was a health care liability claim (HCLC) requiring an expert report under Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, asserting a departure from accepted standards of safety. Reddic maintained it was a premises liability claim, not an HCLC, thus exempting her from filing an expert report. The dissenting judge contends that Reddic's status as a non-patient not involved in rendering medical care excludes her claim from the TMLA's ambit. The dissent advocates for affirming the trial court's denial of ETMC's motion to dismiss, emphasizing the distinction between patient and non-patient claims in healthcare facilities.

Medical MalpracticePremises LiabilityHealth Care Liability ClaimExpert ReportTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeChapter 74TMLASlip and FallHospital LiabilityNon-patient
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06054
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2019

Wilder v. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc.

Plaintiff Nicholas Wilder, suffering from end-stage renal disorder, sued Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Avantus Renal Therapy New York LLC, after they notified him that his dialysis care would be terminated due to disruptive behavior. Wilder sought an injunction to prevent the termination of his life-sustaining dialysis treatment. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied his request for an injunction and vacated a previously granted temporary restraining order (TRO). The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's order, reversing the denial of the injunction and vacating of the TRO, reinstating the TRO pending a hearing on Wilder's injunction request. The appellate court found that the motion court abused its discretion by vacating the TRO and not holding a hearing on the preliminary injunction, given the substantial factual disputes regarding Wilder's behavior and the defendants' compliance with federal regulations for patient discharge. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Wilder's request to proceed anonymously and seal records.

Dialysis TreatmentPatient DischargeTemporary Restraining OrderPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable HarmDisruptive Patient BehaviorFederal RegulationsRight to CareAppellate ReviewSealing Records
References
6
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. 14-08-00627-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2009

Samuel Harden, M.D. v. East Texas Medical Center Health Care Associates

This appeal arises from a summary judgment granted in favor of East Texas Medical Center Health Care Associates (ETMC) in a breach-of-contract action against Samuel Harden, M.D. Harden filed a motion for new trial, asserting he never received notice of ETMC's motion for summary judgment or a hearing date. The appellate court reviewed the denial of the motion for new trial under the Craddock requirements, which dictate setting aside a judgment if the failure to respond was unintentional, a meritorious defense exists, and a new trial causes no delay. Finding that Harden's allegations of lack of notice were uncontroverted and ETMC failed to prove proper service, the court concluded that Harden satisfied the first Craddock element. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the trial court abused its discretion.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractMotion for New TrialDue ProcessNotice RequirementsTexas LawAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedureCivil ProcedureCraddock Test
References
8
Case No. 2015-516 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Healthway Med. Care, P.C. v. Global Liberty Ins.

The case "Healthway Med. Care, P.C. v Global Liberty Ins." involved an appeal by Healthway Medical Care, P.C. against Global Liberty Insurance concerning assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff appealed an order from the Civil Court, Queens County, which denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on certain causes of action (third through tenth) and granted the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss those same causes of action. The Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the Civil Court's order by denying the branches of the defendant's cross-motion seeking summary judgment to dismiss the third through tenth causes of action. The court found the defendant failed to establish that fees exceeded workers' compensation schedules or that independent medical examinations (IMEs) were properly scheduled. However, the plaintiff was not granted summary judgment either, as they failed to demonstrate that the claims were not timely denied or that the denials were without merit. The order was affirmed as modified.

No-fault benefitssummary judgmentindependent medical examinationIME schedulingfee scheduleworkers' compensationappellate reviewcivil proceduremedical billingassigned claims
References
6
Case No. 02A01-9505-CV-00118
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 1996

Cassandra Hughlett v. Shelby County Health Care Corporation, Regional Medical Center at Memphis A/K/A The Med

Plaintiff Cassandra Hughlett underwent a cesarean section in 1991, during which a surgical sponge was allegedly left in her abdomen by the defendants, Shelby County Health Care Corporation, Regional Medical Center at Memphis, a/k/a "The Med," and the University of Tennessee Medical Group, Inc. She subsequently experienced severe pain and required readmission to remove the foreign body, leading her to file a medical malpractice suit alleging negligence. The parties reached a settlement, but a dispute remained regarding whether the plaintiff could recover $6,777.17 in medical expenses paid by the Tennessee Medicaid program from the defendants. The trial court ruled in favor of Hughlett, holding that Medicaid payments were recoverable. "The Med" appealed, arguing that social security benefits (which they claimed Medicaid payments were part of) are collateral sources under T.C.A. § 29-26-119 and thus not recoverable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, citing Nance by Nance v. Westside Hosp. and federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1396a (a) 25(A)), which mandates states to pursue recovery from legally liable third parties. The court concluded that the plaintiff's losses were not "replaced or indemnified" due to the state's right of subrogation for Medicaid payments, making the benefits recoverable.

Medical MalpracticeMedicaid PaymentsCollateral Source RuleSubrogation RightsSocial Security BenefitsHealth Care Provider NegligenceSurgical ErrorForeign Body RetentionCesarean Section ComplicationsDamages Recovery
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2012

Douyon v. NY Medical Health Care, P.C.

Plaintiff Gabrielle Douyon sued Seymour Schneider, N.Y. Medical Health Care, P.C., Faraidoon Daniel Golyan, M.D., and Kourosh Golyan, alleging unfair debt collection practices under the FDCPA and NY GBL § 349, along with intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. The lawsuit stemmed from attempts to collect an alleged medical debt following Douyon's emergency heart surgery performed by Dr. Golyan. Both parties sought summary judgment. The court granted Plaintiff partial summary judgment on FDCPA violations related to statutory disclosures and a threatening voicemail. However, many other FDCPA and NY GBL claims were denied due to factual disputes, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed for lack of medical evidence, with negligence claims partially allowed to proceed on the basis of fear for physical safety.

Fair Debt Collections Practices ActNew York General Business Law § 349Debt CollectionSummary JudgmentEmotional DistressNegligenceAgency RelationshipVicarious LiabilityFreelance Debt CollectorUnfair and Deceptive Practices
References
105
Showing 1-10 of 16,764 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