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. 04-09-00148-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2009

Central Texas Orthopedic Products, Inc. v. Andrew Espinoza and Howmedica Osteronics Corp. D/B/A Stryker Orthopedics

Central Texas Orthopedic Products, Inc. (CTOP) sued Andrew Espinoza for breach of contract and fiduciary duty, and Howmedica Osteonics Corp. d/b/a Stryker Orthopedics (Stryker) for tortious interference. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Espinoza and Stryker, and a jury found Espinoza breached fiduciary duty but awarded no damages. On appeal, CTOP challenged the summary judgments and attorney's fees awarded to Espinoza. The appellate court found the trial court erred in applying the unclean hands doctrine to CTOP's claims as the alleged misconduct was separate from the disputed contract. The court also found a genuine issue of material fact regarding Espinoza's entitlement to compensation due to his alleged breach of fiduciary duty. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Breach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyTortious InterferenceSummary JudgmentUnclean Hands DoctrineNon-Compete AgreementCompensation AgreementTexas Payday ActAppellate ReviewReversed and Remanded
References
15
Case No. 13-13-00552-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2015

Nolana Open MRI Center, Inc. v. Guillermo R. Pechero M.D.Ruben D. Pechero M.D. Maplestar Orthopedics, P. A.

Nolana Open MRI Center, Inc. appealed a judgment rendered against it following a bench trial. The appellees, Guillermo R. Pechero, M.D., Ruben D. Pechero, M.D., and Maplestar Orthopedics, P.A., filed a motion to show authority, contending Nolana's counsel lacked the authority to bring the appeal. The underlying dispute involved the sale of Nolana's assets, patient referrals, lease agreements, and counterclaims for fraudulent inducement, conversion, and breach of contract. A key issue was a 50-50 ownership split in Nolana between Jose Castro and Agustin Garcia, where Castro had settled with defendants and granted them limited power of attorney to oppose litigation, while Garcia sought to authorize the appeal. The Court of Appeals, reviewing the trial court's findings, concluded that Nolana's counsel lacked standing due to the unresolved ownership conflict regarding the authority to initiate the appeal.

Appellate ProcedureJurisdictionMotion to Show AuthorityCorporate AuthorityShareholder DisputeLimited Power of AttorneyBreach of ContractTheft Liability ActFraudulent InducementTortious Interference
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. North Shore Orthopedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, P.C.

Frank Fernandez, an x-ray technician, sued his former employer, North Shore Orthopedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, P.C., for retaliation under Title VII after filing a national origin discrimination complaint. A jury found in favor of Fernandez, awarding back pay, front pay, and punitive damages. North Shore subsequently moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and to modify the damage awards. The court denied North Shore's motions for judgment and a new trial, affirmed the jury's back pay award, but vacated and reduced the front pay award from $160,000 to $50,000, and the punitive damages award from $100,000 to $50,000.

RetaliationTitle VIIEmployment DiscriminationBack PayFront PayPunitive DamagesMitigation of DamagesFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial DiscretionEquitable Relief
References
27
Case No. 01-22-00613-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2024

ROC- Houston, P.A. D/B/A Reconstructive Orthopedic Center of Houston and ROC ASC, LLP v. Dushi Parameswaran, M.D.

This case involves an appeal from a breach of contract dispute concerning an employment agreement and a loan agreement. Dr. Dushi Parameswaran sued his former employer, ROC-Houston, P.A. (the P.A.), and ROC ASC, LLP (ASC), alleging breach of contract for unpaid compensation and non-payment under a loan agreement, respectively. A jury found in favor of Parameswaran on both claims. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas concluded that the employment agreement was unambiguous and did not support the jury's award for Parameswaran, thus reversing that part of the judgment and rendering a take-nothing judgment against him on the employment claim. Regarding the loan agreement, the court found it unambiguous but affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Parameswaran, concluding that the trial court's error in submitting the ambiguity to the jury was harmless as the jury's finding was consistent with the court's interpretation. The case was remanded for reassessment of attorney's fees related to the employment agreement.

Breach of ContractEmployment AgreementLoan AgreementContract InterpretationAmbiguityLegal SufficiencyJNOVAppellate ReviewCompensation DisputeAttorney's Fees
References
31
Case No. ADJ12906916
Regular
Feb 25, 2025

Celia Clara Bautista vs. Cal Central Harvesting, Inc.

Defendant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision finding industrial injury to the applicant in the form of uterine cancer and to the right foot. Defendant contended the WCJ erred by relying on Dr. Lonky's opinions, arguing his specialty was not relevant and he did not adequately consider exposure and latency periods. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the medical record needed further development from additional specialists (oncology, gastroenterology, orthopedics) and supplemental reporting or testimony from Dr. Lonky, thus deferring the issues of industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjuryUterine CancerRight Foot InjuryPulmonologyToxicologyLatency PeriodPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidencePetition for Reconsideration
References
3
Case No. ADJ10917207
Regular
Aug 13, 2019

CARMEN ROJO vs. K & M MEAT COMPANY, STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over the necessity of an additional Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in orthopedic surgery. The Applicant sought reconsideration of an administrative law judge's (ALJ) order for a new orthopedic QME panel, arguing it was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the original QME's referral for an orthopedic evaluation was for treatment, not a recommendation for a new medical-legal evaluation. Consequently, the Board amended the ALJ's findings, holding there was no good cause for an additional orthopedic QME panel and denying the defendant's request.

QME panelorthopedic surgeryreconsiderationremovalFindings & Orderchiropractic QMEmedical-legal evaluationgood causesupplemental pleadingmedical dispute
References
9
Case No. ADJ7264915
Regular
Jul 15, 2013

ANA GONZALES vs. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

This case involves an applicant who sustained industrial psychiatric injury but whose orthopedic claims were denied due to insufficient medical evidence. The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, finding the applicant failed to present substantial medical evidence of industrial causation for her orthopedic complaints. A dissenting commissioner argued that the primary medical evaluator's report was deficient and lacked substantial evidence, warranting further development of the record on orthopedic injuries and other claims. The dissent emphasizes the Board's duty to ensure substantial justice, suggesting it should have ordered further investigation on the denied orthopedic issues.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderindustrial injurypsychelow backneckright shoulderright wristright elbow
References
11
Case No. ADJ7558173
Regular
Oct 28, 2014

JESSIE MOORE vs. PASADENA AREA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and found the applicant was not temporarily totally disabled after her retirement. The Board determined that while the applicant stated her retirement was reluctant, the primary reasons cited were hostile work environment and emotional stress, not solely orthopedic injuries. Medical evidence did not substantially support the claim that the admitted orthopedic injuries alone rendered her temporarily totally disabled. Consequently, temporary disability benefits were not awarded for the orthopedic injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJessie MoorePasadena Area Community College DistrictKeenan & Associatesstatute of limitationstemporary disabilitycumulative traumacervical spinelumbar spineleft wrist
References
7
Case No. ADJ2434971 (OAK 0238163)
Regular
Dec 02, 2010

ANA RODRIGUEZ vs. SHERATON PALACE HOTEL, TOKIO MARINE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a finding that the applicant, Ana Rodriguez, did not sustain new and further permanent disability subsequent to a 1997 stipulated award. The judge found her testimony regarding increased orthopedic and psychiatric symptoms to be not credible. Medical evidence from Dr. Edington indicated no orthopedic increase in disability since the award, and the psychiatric disability became permanent and stationary concurrently with the orthopedic condition. Therefore, the judge concluded there was no "new and further" disability as defined by Labor Code Section 5410.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedCredibility FindingGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Stipulated AwardPetition to ReopenNew and Further DisabilityOrthopedic DisabilityPsychiatric Disability
References
2
Case No. ADJ9975590; ADJ9976116
Regular
Feb 25, 2016

Ana Nieto vs. Avitus, Inc., American Zurich Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding the appealed order was interlocutory and not subject to reconsideration. The WCAB treated the petition as one for removal and denied it, as the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant's contention that their trial exhibits and an orthopedic QME panel were erroneously stricken was rejected, as was their claim that the orthopedic QME panel was improperly denied. The defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their request for an orthopedic QME panel over a chiropractic one.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalJoint Findings of Fact & OrdersQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Orthopedic Surgery QMEChiropractic QMETrial ExhibitsAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)Labor Code § 4062.2
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 541 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