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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. ADJ7454504
Regular
Aug 01, 2019

JANE ELLIS vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES legally uninsured, administered by YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior Findings and Award. The Board found that the agreed medical examiner's opinion on permanent disability was not substantial evidence because it was based on an outdated medical examination and an inaccurate assumption about the applicant's current medications. Additionally, the Board noted that vocational expert reports failed to address the impact of apportionment. The case is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to obtain updated medical opinions and address vocational expert reporting deficiencies.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAgreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical ExaminerPermanent DisabilityApportionmentSubstantial EvidenceInadequate Medical HistoryVocational ExpertLabor Code Section 5903
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richardson v. Apfel

Plaintiff Barbara Richardson challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits. The District Court found that the Commissioner committed legal error by failing to adequately develop the administrative record regarding Richardson's mental impairments and by improperly dismissing new evidence from treating physicians without seeking further clinical support. The court also determined that the use of Medical-Vocational Guidelines was inappropriate due to Richardson's significant nonexertional impairments, necessitating the testimony of a vocational expert. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for reconsideration to obtain additional medical evidence and, if necessary, to secure a vocational expert.

Social Security Disability BenefitsSupplemental Security Income (SSI)Mental ImpairmentDysthymia DisorderPersonality DisorderTreating Physician RuleAdministrative Record DevelopmentMedical-Vocational GuidelinesNonexertional ImpairmentsVocational Expert
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Queens Blvd. Medical, P.C. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

The plaintiff, Queens Blvd. Medical, P.C., sought $950 in first-party no-fault benefits for biofeedback medical services provided to its assignor for lower back and chronic pain syndrome. The central issue at trial was the medical necessity of these services under Insurance Law § 5102 (a) (1). The plaintiff established a prima facie case with expert testimony from a board-certified neurologist affirming the medical appropriateness of biofeedback. The defendant insurance company failed to present admissible evidence to disprove medical necessity, as its expert was deemed incompetent to testify on biofeedback for back pain. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict, awarding judgment for $950 along with statutory costs, interest, and attorney's fees.

No-fault benefitsMedical necessityBiofeedback treatmentExpert testimonyDirected verdictInsurance lawChronic pain syndromeBack injuryCPT codesBurden of proof
References
9
Case No. ADJ4280526 (OXN 0148727)
Regular
Dec 09, 2013

CLARA ARBIZU vs. WESTAC, INC., WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an applicant's request for the defendant to prepay the cost of a vocational expert. The Appeals Board affirmed the original decision that defendants are not obligated to prepay these expenses. However, the Board clarified that vocational expert costs are considered medical-legal expenses under Labor Code section 4620 et seq., and defendants are liable for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred for proving or disproving a contested claim. The parties are ordered to proceed with a vocational expert evaluation, with the defendant ultimately responsible for the costs.

ArbizuVocational expertPrepaymentMedical-legal expenseLabor Code Section 4620Labor Code Section 4621Labor Code Section 5811Labor Code Section 5708Ogilvie analysisWhole Person Impairment
References
5
Case No. ADJ11197264
Regular
Apr 13, 2023

CECILIA MENDOZA vs. BERRYESSA CONTRACTING, INCORPORATED, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision awarding 25% permanent disability for industrial injuries to the applicant's left shoulder, neck, left lower arm, and upper back. The applicant contended the judge erred by not developing the medical-legal record regarding her vocational expert and by not awarding a higher disability rating based on vocational expert opinions. The Board found the applicant's vocational expert's opinions unreliable due to misunderstandings of her physical restrictions and other inaccuracies. Therefore, the applicant failed to rebut the scheduled permanent disability rating of 25%.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationVocational ExpertPermanent Disability RatingAMA GuidesLabor Code Section 4660.1Scheduled Permanent Disability RatingWhole Person ImpairmentVocational RehabilitationSubstantial Evidence
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 16,383 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