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. 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

McKelvy v. Columbia Medical Center of McKinney Subsidiary, L.P.

Jeannie McKelvy, an employee of Columbia Medical Center of McKinney Subsidiary, L.P., d/b/a McKinney Medical Center (the Hospital), sustained injuries from a slip and fall at work due to leaking lab equipment. She filed a negligence claim against the Hospital, which is a non-subscriber to workers' compensation insurance. The Hospital moved to dismiss her claims under the Texas Medical Liability Act (Chapter 74) for failure to file an expert report, arguing her claims were health care liability claims. The trial court granted the Hospital's motion. On appeal, McKelvy argued her claims were ordinary negligence claims, not subject to Chapter 74. The appellate court reviewed the definition of a 'health care liability claim' under section 74.001(a)(13) of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. The court concluded that McKelvy's claims, stemming from a hazardous floor caused by leaking lab equipment, did not have an indirect relationship to the provision of health care and did not involve a patient-physician relationship. Therefore, her claims were not health care liability claims, and the trial court erred in dismissing her case. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

References
5
Case No. 2008 NY Slip Op 31457(U)
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2008

Parente v. 277 Park Avenue LLC

Plaintiff Dennis Párente, an operating engineer, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while investigating a malfunctioning booster fan in an office leased by defendant Chase. The original Supreme Court ruling denied Párente's partial summary judgment motion under Labor Law § 240 (1) and dismissed the complaint. This Appellate Division order modified that decision, finding that Párente's activity constituted repair, not routine maintenance, thus making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable and imposing absolute liability. Consequently, Párente's motion for summary judgment on this claim was granted, and the defendants' cross-motion for dismissal was denied. Other claims under Labor Law §§ 241 (6), 200, and common-law negligence were properly dismissed, and triable issues of fact remain concerning a third-party indemnification action.

Ladder FallBooster Fan RepairLabor Law § 240(1)Absolute LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionWorkplace SafetyWorker InjuryEmergency RepairThird-Party ActionIndemnification Claim
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Leon RR

This dissenting opinion addresses a case concerning the permanent termination of parental rights for an infant, Leon, Jr., who had been in the physical custody of foster parents since 19 months of age. The dissent argues that the St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services consistently undermined the natural parental relationship, encouraging the foster parents and failing to make diligent efforts to assist the natural parents in maintaining their connection with the child. It criticizes the agency for not carrying out a plan for reintegration and for encouraging the infant's attachment to the foster parents while limiting natural parental visitation. The opinion asserts that the record is inadequate to support the termination of parental rights, highlighting that the natural parents had previously had their other children returned to them and had cooperated with caseworkers. The dissent concludes that the administrative agency's conduct amounted to an abuse of the temporary placement system and votes to reverse the order, seeking dismissal of the petition for permanent termination of parental rights and remittal for consideration of continued custody.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Custody DisputeFoster Care SystemChild WelfareFamily LawBest Interests of the ChildJudicial DissentDepartment of Social ServicesFamily Court ActParent-Child Relationship
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corrales v. Department of Family & Protective Services

This is an accelerated appeal concerning the termination of parental rights for three children of Zulema Frias and Ricardo Corrales. The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (the Department) filed the petition, and a jury found that the parent-child relationship should be terminated, naming the Department as managing conservator. The parents appealed, citing evidentiary error regarding the admission of police reports and the court's failure to appoint the maternal grandmother as managing conservator. The court affirmed the judgment, finding the police reports were cumulative evidence and the jury's decision to appoint the Department was supported by legally sufficient evidence, considering factors such as the parents' drug abuse, history of violence, and the grandmother's inability to provide adequate care.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodySubstance AbuseChild NeglectEvidentiary ErrorHearsayBest Interest of the ChildManaging ConservatorshipFamily LawAccelerated Appeal
References
39
Case No. 03-22-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Stephanie Muth in Her Official Capacity of Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor John Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor And Dr. Megan Mooney

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction against the State of Texas for issuing a directive that classifies gender-affirming medical care for minors as child abuse. Appellees, including parents of a transgender adolescent and a psychologist, sued to enjoin the State from initiating child abuse investigations based on this directive. The trial court denied the State's plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of jurisdiction and the injunction against the Department of Family and Protective Services and its Commissioner, concluding that the directive constituted an invalid rule under the APA and caused irreparable harm. However, it reversed the denial of jurisdiction and dismissed claims against the Governor, stating he lacked authority to control investigatory decisions.

Gender-affirming careChild abuse policyTemporary injunctionAdministrative Procedure ActUltra viresParental rightsEqual protectionDue processState government authorityJudicial review
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2001

Constantine v. Premier Cab Corp.

In a personal injury action, the plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court had ruled that the plaintiff's recovery was limited to workers’ compensation, believing the defendant and the plaintiff’s employer were subsidiaries of the same parent company, Schindler Elevator Corporation. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, determining that the defendant failed to present sufficient evidence demonstrating the parent company's control over its subsidiaries' day-to-day operations, which is necessary to establish an alter ego relationship and thus invoke workers' compensation exclusivity. Consequently, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was denied, and the plaintiff's complaint was reinstated due to unresolved factual issues.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentAlter EgoSubsidiary LiabilityCorporate VeilAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityFactual IssuesMotion to Dismiss
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Nahia M.

The respondent appealed a Family Court order from Tompkins County, entered June 21, 2006, which terminated her parental rights to her two older sons, Nahia M. and Nary an M., following a finding of permanent neglect. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding that the petitioner made diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship by providing various services, including parenting classes, counseling, and supervised visitation, and appropriately considered the respondent's medical condition. The court also determined that the respondent failed to realistically plan for the children's future, as evidenced by her inconsistent involvement in their care and special education. Ultimately, the appellate panel concluded that termination of parental rights served the children's best interests, given their special needs, extensive time in foster care, and the foster mother's desire to adopt.

Parental Rights TerminationPermanent NeglectDiligent EffortsSpecial Needs ChildrenFamily Court AppealSocial Services LawBest Interests of the ChildFoster CareMedical ConditionVisitation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Guardianship of Alexander

This case concerns a petitioner agency's appeal against a Family Court decision that dismissed its petition to terminate the parental rights of Nicole, the mother of Milton, due to alleged permanent neglect. The appellate court reversed the Family Court's finding that the agency failed to make diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship. The court found that despite the agency's consistent attempts to facilitate visitation, planning, and offer assistance with housing and financial aid, the mother remained uncooperative and indifferent. Citing established legal precedents, the appellate court affirmed that an agency's duty is to exert diligent efforts, not to guarantee parental success. The case was remanded to the Family Court for a dispositional hearing to determine the child's future.

Parental Rights TerminationPermanent NeglectDiligent EffortsChild Welfare AgencyUncooperative ParentFamily Court ProcedureAppellate ReversalRemand for HearingSocial Services Law § 384-bChild Adoption
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 1990

In re Shaquanna C. Forestdale, Inc.

The natural mother appealed two orders from the Family Court, Kings County, dated August 20, 1990, which terminated her parental rights and committed her children to Forestdale, Inc., and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York. The appeal also reviewed a December 21, 1989, fact-finding order that found the mother permanently neglected her children by failing to plan for their futures. The court affirmed the orders, finding that the petitioning agency, Forestdale, Inc., made diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationships, including providing visitation, sign-language interpreters, and counseling for the hearing-impaired mother. Expert testimony from the children’s psychotherapists indicated that terminating parental rights was in the children's best interests, as mere contact with the mother would be detrimental to the children's progress in foster care.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectFamily CourtDiligent EffortsBest Interests of ChildrenFoster CareHearing Impaired ParentSocial Services LawPermanent NeglectAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,620 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