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. 03-17-00357-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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Grief Bros.

This employment discrimination case, filed July 1, 2002, involves Michael Sabo (Plaintiff) who alleges constructive discharge based on sexual harassment and claims severe emotional pain and suffering. The Defendant moved for a mental examination of Sabo under Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 and to compel the production of his medical records. Sabo alleged severe humiliation, anxiety, depression, loss of self-esteem, sleeplessness, and weight gain, and admitted to a history of depression, past suicide attempts, and current psychiatric treatment with prescribed medications. The court granted the Defendant's motions, finding that Sabo had placed his mental condition in controversy due to the nature and severity of his claims and his medical history, justifying both the examination and the production of relevant medical records. The court also granted Defendant's request for costs associated with compelling the medical records, but denied the request for costs related to the Rule 35 motion itself, and denied Plaintiff's request for counsel or recording during the examination.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeEmotional DistressMental ExaminationRule 35Medical RecordsDepressionSuicide AttemptsCompensatory Damages
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Standard Insurance Co. v. Gayton

National Standard Insurance Company appealed a judgment awarding workers’ compensation benefits to Chris Gayton. The central issue was the admissibility of medical records containing diagnoses and opinions from treating physicians (Dr. A.R. Fernandez, Dr. Wainscott, and Dr. Corbin) when Gayton had not listed them as expert witnesses in discovery interrogatories. National Standard argued for exclusion based on Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 166b and 215, which require designation of expert witnesses. The court, however, distinguished between testifying experts and nontestifying medical experts whose opinions are part of authenticated medical records. It held that the discovery rules for testifying experts do not preclude the admission of such medical records. Consequently, the judgment awarding benefits to Gayton was affirmed.

Discovery ProceduresExpert TestimonyMedical EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidenceTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureAppellate PracticePersonal Injury LitigationDisability BenefitsTreating Physician's RecordsHearsay Rule Exception
References
10
Case No. NUMBER 13-08-00200-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2009

Valley Baptist Medical Center v. Noe Morales, Jr., as Administrator of the Estate of Paulina Morales

This is a statutory construction case concerning the production of medical records and associated fees. Appellant Valley Baptist Medical Center (VBMC) appealed a district court order compelling it to provide medical records to Appellee Noe Morales, Jr., as administrator of an estate, without charge. Morales sought records under the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, while VBMC asserted its right to charge a reasonable fee under the Texas Health and Safety Code. The appellate court concluded that the statutes could be harmonized, affirming Morales's entitlement to the records but also VBMC's right to charge the statutory fee. The court reversed the trial court's judgment, requiring Morales to pay the $1,143.00 fee.

Statutory ConstructionMedical RecordsFees for RecordsTexas Civil Practices and Remedies CodeTexas Health and Safety CodeHospital LiabilityMandamusAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationHealthcare Law
References
15
Case No. 03-02-00089-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2003

Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. and Independent Review Incorporated v. State of Texas Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas And Jose Montemayor, Insurance Commissioner of Texas

Appellants Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. and Independent Review Incorporated appealed a trial court's judgment concerning the disclosure of certain records under the Public Information Act. The case originated from a request for information made to the Texas Department of Insurance related to appellants' applications for certification as Independent Review Organizations (IROs). The Attorney General had previously ruled that the requested information, including reviewer lists, contracts, and compensation, could not be withheld. Appellants argued that the information was 'confidential by law' and also excepted from disclosure under the commercial or financial information clause of the PIA. The appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that appellants failed to meet their burden to prove an exception to disclosure applied.

Public Information ActDisclosure of RecordsIndependent Review OrganizationsConfidentialityCommercial InformationFinancial InformationAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewInjunctive ReliefAdministrative Law
References
12
Case No. 2022-02-0451
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2022

Qualls, Steven v. Federal Mogul

Mr. Qualls sought medical benefits for an alleged back injury sustained while lifting a heavy box at work on June 24, 2022. Federal Mogul disputed the work-relatedness of the injury, arguing that Mr. Qualls did not report a work injury and medical records indicated his pain began at home two weeks prior. The Court denied Mr. Qualls's request for medical benefits, finding he failed to introduce sufficient medical evidence to prove his condition arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. The decision highlighted that medical records, including those from his primary provider Nurse Jennifer Dyer and orthopedic surgeon Dr. Jeffrey Peterson, did not establish causation.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsCausationBack InjuryExpedited HearingEmployee Burden of ProofMedical EvidenceTennessee LawEmployer DefenseWork-Related Injury
References
1
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. v. State

Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. and Independent Review Incorporated, both Independent Review Organizations (IROs), appealed a trial court's judgment denying their request to exempt certain records from disclosure under the Public Information Act (PIA). They sought to prevent the release of information pertaining to their reviewers, reviewer contracts, and compensation terms, arguing that this information was either 'confidential by law' or fell under the commercial or financial information exception of the PIA. The Texas Department of Insurance, having received the initial information request, had interpreted its rules to protect patient-specific data provided *to* IROs, not data provided *by* IROs as part of their certification application. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the appellants failed to demonstrate that any exception to public disclosure applied to the disputed information.

Public Information ActOpen Records ActConfidentiality ExemptionCommercial InformationFinancial InformationIndependent Review OrganizationsIRO CertificationMedical NecessityUtilization ReviewTrade Secrets
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giles v. Gi Yi

The dissenting opinion by Justice Whalen challenges the majority's interpretation of 22 NYCRR 202.17, which mandates personal injury plaintiffs to secure an expert witness report on causation and provide it to the defense prior to the defendant's medical examination of the plaintiff. Whalen argues this requirement is an undue burden and is not explicitly outlined within the regulation's scope. The dissent emphasizes that 22 NYCRR 202.17 (b) (1) only requires disclosure of reports from 'medical providers who have previously treated or examined the party seeking recovery,' distinct from expert reports generated solely for litigation purposes. Furthermore, Justice Whalen asserts that expert disclosure is governed by CPLR 3101 (d), which does not necessitate such early disclosure, and finds that the Supreme Court's decision to compel was an abuse of discretion, concluding that Nero v Kendrick was wrongly decided.

Expert Witness DisclosureCausationMedical ExaminationPersonal InjuryCivil Procedure Law and Rules (CPLR)Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court and County Court (22 NYCRR)Dissenting OpinionJudicial DiscretionPreclusionLitigation Expenses
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 14,989 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