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. 2016-08-0085
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2016

Humphreys, Jerry v. Prestigious Placement, Inc.

Jerry Humphreys, a fifty-year-old employee, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing against Prestigious Placement, Inc., his uninsured employer, seeking continued medical and temporary disability benefits for work-related neck and back injuries sustained on June 18, 2015. Humphreys reported the injury to Americraft supervisor and then Prestigious, receiving initial treatment and benefits until January 15, 2016, when benefits were terminated due to alleged refusal of light duty work and fabricated claims. The Court found Humphreys injured himself at work and that the employer's defenses lacked evidence, including their claim of willful misconduct or refusal of light duty work. Presiding Judge Jim Umsted ruled that Humphreys is entitled to continued medical treatment with his authorized treating physician, Dr. Murrell, and ongoing temporary partial disability benefits from January 16, 2016, forward. Additionally, the Court awarded Humphreys' attorney a fee of twenty percent of the temporary disability award.

Expedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityNeck InjuryBack InjuryCervical MyelopathyUninsured EmployerWork-Related AccidentSedentary Work RestrictionsAttorney's Fees
References
3
Case No. 13-04-310-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2005

Opel Wiltshire v. Humpal Physical Therapy, P. C.

Opel Wiltshire was terminated from Humpal Physical Therapy, P.C. for violating a nail polish policy and making a phone call to the owner. She subsequently filed claims for race discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Humpal on all claims and awarded attorney's fees to Humpal. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment on Wiltshire's claims due to lack of evidence for prima facie cases. However, the appellate court reversed the award of attorney's fees to Humpal, finding the trial court abused its discretion given its implicit finding that Wiltshire's claims were not groundless.

Reverse DiscriminationSummary JudgmentAttorney FeesRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentRace DiscriminationEmotional DistressEmployment LawTCHRATexas Court of Appeals
References
41
Case No. 2015-2337 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2018

Sama Physical Therapy, P.C. v. Hereford Ins. Co.

This case concerns an action by Sama Physical Therapy, P.C., as assignee, to recover first-party no-fault benefits from Hereford Insurance Co. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's assignor had been injured during the course of employment. The Civil Court conditionally granted defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, ordering the plaintiff to file an application with the Workers' Compensation Board within 90 days. Plaintiff failed to comply with this order, and upon renewal, the Civil Court adhered to its prior determination. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the Civil Court's order, finding that the plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the order to make a proper application under the Workers' Compensation Law.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewConditional GrantFailure to ComplyRenewal MotionInsurance LawAssigneeMedical Provider
References
1
Case No. 2015-608 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Adelaida Physical Therapy, P.C. v. 21st Century Ins. Co.

In this case, Adelaida Physical Therapy, P.C., acting as an assignee, appealed an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County. The original order had granted 21st Century Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment, dismissing parts of a complaint seeking first-party no-fault benefits for services billed under specific CPT codes (97010, 97110, and 97124). The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court found that 21st Century Insurance Company failed to demonstrate that it had used the correct conversion factor to calculate the reimbursement rate, thus not establishing its defense that the charged fees exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule. As a result, the branches of the defendant's motion for summary judgment related to those CPT codes were denied.

No-Fault BenefitsCPT CodesSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleReimbursement RateAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeCivil ProcedureConversion FactorMedical Billing
References
2
Case No. 2016-198 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2018

Comprehensive Care Physical Therapy, P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

This case concerns a provider, Comprehensive Care Physical Therapy, P.C., seeking no-fault benefits from Allstate Insurance Company. The Civil Court initially denied the plaintiff's summary judgment motion and granted the defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint based on the assignor's failure to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs) and claims exceeding the fee schedule. On appeal, the Appellate Term modified this order, finding that Allstate failed to provide sufficient proof of timely denial form mailing, thereby precluding its defenses regarding IMEs and the fee schedule. Consequently, Allstate's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied, reversing that part of the lower court's decision. However, the Appellate Term affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, as the plaintiff also failed to establish their claims.

no-fault insurancesummary judgmentindependent medical examinationstimely denialinsurance defenseappellate reviewmedical billingassignee rightsprocedural requirementsfee schedule
References
5
Case No. 46885/05, 47943/05, 47945/05
Regular Panel Decision

Robert Physical Therapy, P.C. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

This case involves three consolidated claims for first-party no-fault benefits related to physical therapy services. The plaintiff's assignors received physical therapy, and the defendant, an insurer, denied some claims due to disputes over billing codes. The central legal issues concerned whether a physical therapist could utilize billing codes from the medicine fee schedule when such services were not explicitly in the physical medicine schedule, and if range of motion and muscle testing could be billed separately from evaluation and management on the same day. The court determined that physical therapists are not confined to the physical medicine section and can use codes from any section of the medical fee schedule. Furthermore, the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify its denials regarding separate billing for range of motion and muscle testing. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding judgment for all disputed amounts.

Physical Therapy BillingNo-Fault BenefitsMedical Fee ScheduleCPT CodesWorkers' Compensation RegulationsEvaluation and Management ServicesRange of Motion TestingMuscle TestingProvider SpecialtyBilling Disputes
References
4
Case No. 13-08-00351-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2009

Mitch Burkhart and Christine Burkhart v. Sedgwick Claim Management Services, Inc. and Concentra Integrated Services, and rgv/nueces Rehabilitation D/B/A Innovative Physical and Occupational Therapy

Mitch Burkhart sustained a foot and ankle injury while training for his employer, Verizon Communications. Verizon's workers' compensation claims were administered by Sedgwick Claim Management Services, Inc., who, along with Concentra Integrated Services, arranged a Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) for Burkhart with RGV/Nueces Rehabilitation d/b/a Innovative Physical and Occupational Therapy. The Burkharts alleged that the FCE aggravated Mitch's injury, causing permanent damage. They sued Sedgwick, Concentra, and Innovative, claiming negligence, civil conspiracy, assault, fraud, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court dismissed the case against Innovative for an inadequate expert report and granted summary judgment to Sedgwick and Concentra, citing the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Mitch's aggravation injury was an 'extension injury' covered by the exclusive remedy provision of the TWCA.

Workers' CompensationFunctional Capacity EvaluationExclusive RemedyAggravation InjurySummary JudgmentMedical Expert ReportHealth Care LiabilityCivil ConspiracyBreach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair DealingTexas Court of Appeals
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Christopher

The court considered a petition by the Broome County Social Services Department for an extension of placement for the child Elizabeth. Elizabeth was placed in foster care following the death of her half-brother, for which her mother, Sally, was convicted of criminally negligent homicide. Despite the Department's placement of Elizabeth with her mother during the proceedings, the court found Sally lacked credibility, insight, and responsibility for her actions. Expert testimony from two clinical psychologists highlighted the high risk to Elizabeth in her mother's care due to the mother's personality issues and lack of accountability. The court granted the extension of placement for 12 months but ordered Elizabeth's removal from her mother's home, directing the Department to place her in an appropriate alternative setting while both parents receive necessary services.

Child WelfareFamily Court ActExtension of PlacementChild AbuseCriminally Negligent HomicideParental RightsBest Interests of the ChildPsychological EvaluationCredibility AssessmentParental Responsibility
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Baby Girl B.

This case involves a private placement adoption proceeding where the biological mother initially consented to the adoption of her child born on May 16, 1988. She later revoked her consent after her parents became aware of the birth. The unwed putative father also did not sign a consent. The biological parents alleged the mother's consent was invalid due to non-compliance with Domestic Relations Law § 115-b and was obtained by fraud and duress. They also claimed improper placement under Social Services Law § 374 (2) and § 371 (12). The court found the consent valid and freely given, and the child's placement compliant with the law, denying the motion to vacate consent and dismiss the adoption petition.

Private Placement AdoptionParental ConsentRevocation of ConsentFraud and DuressChild PlacementSocial Services LawDomestic Relations LawBest Interests of ChildSurrogate CourtNew York Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duhon v. Bone & Joint Physical Therapy Clinics

Beatrice Duhon, a physical therapy technician, appealed a summary judgment granted to her employer, Bone & Joint Physical Therapy Clinics, in a suit alleging retaliatory termination in violation of the Texas anti-retaliation statute. Duhon reported an on-the-job injury and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim after her termination. The Clinic argued she was terminated to hire a licensed physical therapist. The appellate court held that informing the employer of an injury sufficiently invokes statutory protection and found Duhon presented sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence to create a fact issue regarding the causal link between her reported injury and termination. Therefore, the summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeAnti-Retaliation StatuteSummary JudgmentCausal LinkTexas Labor CodeOn-the-job InjuryEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewRemand
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 1,425 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