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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pisharodi v. Barrash

Appellant, Dr. Madhaven Pisharodi, challenged a trial court's award of summary judgment in favor of appellees, Dr. J. Martin Barrash and Houston Neurosurgical Associates, P.A., on a libel claim. Dr. Pisharodi sued Dr. Barrash for statements made in a letter concerning his medical treatment of a patient, Juan Escobedo. The trial court concluded that the contested statements were pure opinions and were absolutely privileged because they were published in connection to a quasi-judicial proceeding involving the United States Department of Labor. The appellate court reversed this judgment, concluding that the letter was capable of defamatory meaning and not protected opinion speech. Furthermore, the court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the letter was republished outside the privileged judicial context, thus waiving the privilege. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

LibelDefamationSummary JudgmentProtected SpeechAbsolute PrivilegeMedical Professional LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ClaimMedical EvaluationRepublished DefamationQuasi-Judicial Privilege
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. Blanchette

Dr. A.J. Morris sued Dr. Katherine Blanchette for libel per se following a peer review report Blanchette issued to a worker’s compensation carrier. The report was critical of Morris’s treatment of patient Lawrence Davis, specifically stating that further physical therapy and prescription medications were not medically necessary after Davis reached maximum medical improvement. Morris contended that the report was defamatory, accusing him of a felony offense by prescribing medicine without a valid medical purpose. The trial court granted Blanchette's motion for summary judgment. Morris appealed, arguing that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the statements were constitutionally protected opinions, libelous per se, and if they were privileged. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Blanchette’s report contained a constitutionally protected expression of opinion and was not defamatory, thereby upholding the integrity of the independent medical review system in worker's compensation.

Libel Per SeDefamationPeer ReviewMedical NecessityWorker's Compensation SystemSummary JudgmentFact vs. OpinionConstitutional ProtectionMedical Treatment DisputeAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 1986

Kneeland v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses remaining issues regarding the disclosure of information sought by Plaintiffs and Intervenors from the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and Southwest Conference (SWC) under the Texas Open Records Act. The Court previously established that the Defendants are governmental bodies and the information is public, placing the burden on Defendants to demonstrate applicable exemptions due to their failure to seek an attorney general's opinion. The Court considered various exceptions including constitutional and common law privacy, freedom of association, attorney-client privilege, self-critical analysis, law enforcement records, inter-agency memoranda, and student records. Ultimately, the Court granted in part the applications for writ of mandamus, ordering disclosure of the information with redactions for student privacy and upholding attorney-client privilege for specific documents, while rejecting most other asserted exemptions due to overriding legitimate public interest in the oversight of intercollegiate recruiting practices.

Texas Open Records ActPublic InformationGovernmental BodiesPrivacy RightsFreedom of AssociationAttorney-Client PrivilegeSelf-Critical AnalysisLaw Enforcement RecordsInter-Agency MemorandaStudent Records
References
46
Case No. 1430/93
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 1995

People v. Hunts

This opinion addresses a legal issue in a criminal trial involving enterprise corruption, scheme to defraud, grand larceny, and Martin Act violations against former Oxford Capital Securities, Inc. employees Hunte, Robinson, and Dowling. A key cooperating witness, Leonard Donner, asserted attorney-client privilege when questioned about his awareness of potential penalties he faced if he hadn't accepted a cooperation agreement. The court, presided over by Justice Colleen McMahon, ruled that the defendants' Sixth Amendment right of confrontation outweighs Donner's attorney-client privilege. The judge found that Donner's motive to falsify testimony was not a collateral matter and was crucial to the defense. Therefore, Donner was compelled to answer questions regarding his knowledge of the penalties, overriding his privilege.

Enterprise CorruptionAttorney-Client PrivilegeSixth Amendment Right of ConfrontationCooperating WitnessMotive to Falsify TestimonyWaiver of PrivilegePublic PolicyCriminal ProcedurePlea AgreementWitness Impeachment
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Hilligas

This court opinion addresses a motion by "The People" to compel the testimony of Kathy Hilligas, mother of the defendant, Mario J. Rossetti, before a Grand Jury regarding alleged conversations about a murder. Mrs. Hilligas claimed a "child-parent" privilege, but her son, the defendant, is 28 years old, self-supporting, and lives independently. The court reviewed New York precedents, noting that while the privilege has been recognized for minor children, its extension to adults in *People v Fitzgerald* was an outlier, and the Court of Appeals in *People v Johnson* considered age a significant factor. Concluding that the nature of the parent-child relationship significantly changes in adulthood and no longer outweighs the State's interest in investigating serious crimes, the court denied the defendant's motion. Consequently, Mrs. Hilligas was ordered to testify, rejecting the application of the parent-child privilege in this instance.

Parent-child privilegeConfidential communicationsGrand Jury testimonyAdult childEvidentiary privilegeTestimonial privilegeCommon-law privilegeConstitutional right to privacyState interest in fact-findingMotion to compel
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Ackerson

In a felony driving while intoxicated trial, defendant Scott Ackerson moved to preclude the testimony of an emergency medical technician (EMT), Diane Wood, citing the physician-patient privilege under CPLR 4504(a). The court denied the motion, stating that evidentiary privileges, being in derogation of common law, must be strictly construed. The Legislature has not explicitly extended this privilege to EMTs, despite creating other specific privileges. The court found no evidence that the EMT acted as an agent for a physician. The opinion emphasized that an EMT's role is to stabilize patients, distinct from a physician's role of diagnosis and treatment, thus not falling within the purpose of the CPLR 4504 privilege.

PrivilegeEmergency Medical TechnicianEMTPhysician-Patient PrivilegeCPLR 4504Statutory InterpretationEvidentiary PrivilegeFelony DWITestimony PreclusionAgency
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Jackson

This appeal concerns a judgment awarding an appellee a disability award under workers' compensation due to a heart attack allegedly suffered during employment. The appellant challenged the exclusion of Dr. Mohr's medical testimony, the sufficiency of evidence regarding the heart attack's occurrence in the course of employment, and the finding of good cause for a delayed claim. The court sustained the points of error concerning the exclusion of Dr. Mohr's testimony, finding the privilege was waived and his expert opinion, based on medical records and hypothetical questions, should have been admitted. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial, while other points of error were overruled.

Workers' CompensationHeart AttackCourse of EmploymentMedical TestimonyEvidentiary PrivilegeSocial Security ActStatute of LimitationsSufficiency of EvidenceRemandNew Trial
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Columbia Valley Regional Medical Center

Columbia Valley Regional Medical Center sought mandamus relief against a trial court's order compelling the production of redacted nonparty medical records in an underlying medical malpractice action. Sandra Cantu, the real party in interest, argued that redacting patient identifying information would circumvent the privilege and allow discovery of a nurse's charting practices. However, the court held that the medical records privilege, enshrined in various Texas statutes and rules, applies even when records are redacted, and that the constitutional right to privacy further protects such information. The court found that allowing production of privileged information, even if redacted, would undermine the purpose of the privilege. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the hospital's petition, ruling that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the production of the nonparty medical records.

MandamusMedical MalpracticeMedical Records PrivilegePatient PrivacyRedactionDiscoveryTexas LawAbuse of DiscretionConfidentialityNonparty Records
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Orozco

This is an appeal from an interlocutory judgment concerning a plea of privilege in a worker’s compensation case. Appellant, Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA), sought to be sued in Lubbock County, where the injury occurred, while appellee, Jose T. Orozco (Orozco), filed suit in Webb County, his county of residence. The trial court in Webb County overruled TEIA’s plea of privilege, a decision which is being appealed here. Previous related litigation involving the same parties had affirmed the transfer of the case to Webb County, and the Supreme Court dismissed that appeal for want of jurisdiction. Citing precedents like Hagemeister v. Vanity Fair Properties and Pinney v. Cook, the court emphasized that a final judgment on a plea of privilege is conclusive on the issue of venue. Therefore, the court affirmed the order of the trial court overruling TEIA’s plea of privilege.

Venue DisputePlea of PrivilegeInterlocutory JudgmentRes JudicataWorkers Compensation LawAppellate ReviewTexas LawCourt JurisdictionStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. 16885
Regular Panel Decision

Parks & Wildlife Department of the State v. Heldenfels Bros., Inc.

This case involves a consolidated venue appeal stemming from a fatal automobile collision in McMullen County, Texas, on December 8, 1978, between vehicles driven by James E. Daughtrey, Jr. (State game warden) and Gerald C. Huebotter (Heldenfels Brothers employee). Cynthia A. Daughtrey, widow of James, sued Heldenfels and Deborah Lynn Huebotter (Gerald's widow) in cause 922; the State intervened for workers' compensation subrogation. Subsequently, Deborah Lynn Huebotter sued the State in cause 936 for damages, where the State counterclaimed and brought a third-party action against Heldenfels. The trial court sustained pleas of privilege by Heldenfels and Huebotter in cause 922 and by Heldenfels in cause 936. This opinion, on a motion for rehearing, addresses the State's appeal concerning the plea of privilege of Heldenfels in cause 936. The court finds that Heldenfels waived its plea of privilege in cause 936 by filing a non-compliant "special appearance" and reverses the trial court's order. The appeal regarding Heldenfels' plea in cause 922 is dismissed due to the State's failure to file a controverting plea.

VenuePlea of PrivilegeWaiverSpecial AppearanceGeneral AppearanceTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureWorkers' Compensation SubrogationNegligence Per SeCourse and Scope of EmploymentWrongful Death
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 23,447 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