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. 01-12-00581-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2013

Newspaper Holdings, Inc., Integracare of Texas, LLC, and Charlotte Patterson v. Crazy Hotel Assisted Living, LTD, Crazy Hotel Assisted Living GP, LLC, Leisure Life Senior Apartment Housing II, LTD, and Charles v. Miller, Jr.

This case is an appeal from the denial of motions to dismiss a defamation, business disparagement, and tortious interference lawsuit. Appellants, Newspaper Holdings, Inc., IntegraCare of Texas, LLC, and Charlotte Patterson, published articles detailing regulatory issues and investigations at Crazy Hotel Assisted Living facility and its owner, Charles Miller. They sought dismissal under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA), asserting their communications were protected free speech on matters of public concern. The appellate court found it had jurisdiction, reversed the trial court's decision, holding that Appellants met the TCPA burden, and that Appellees failed to provide prima facie evidence for their claims. The court also determined the commercial speech exemption to the TCPA did not apply, remanding the case for dismissal.

DefamationBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens' Participation Act (TCPA)Free SpeechPublic ConcernAssisted Living FacilityElder AbuseMedicaid Fraud ProbeNewspaper Articles
References
29
Case No. 01-14-00767-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Shirley Lenoir, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shana Lenoir and Christopher McKnight , Individually and as Next Friend of Nayla McKnight v. U.T. Physicians

This is a health care liability appeal where Shirley Lenoir and Christopher McKnight, individually and as representatives of the Estate of Shana Lenoir and Nayla McKnight, challenge the trial court's decision to grant U.T. Physicians' plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. The appellants allege that U.T. Physicians' negligence in treating Shana Lenoir’s twin pregnancy, specifically the administration of a medically unnecessary and contraindicated progesterone injection by Nurse Matthews, proximately caused her death. U.T. Physicians claimed sovereign immunity as a governmental unit. Appellants argue that U.T. Physicians is a private non-profit corporation and an independent contractor, not entitled to sovereign immunity, and that a waiver of immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act was sufficiently pled due to the use of tangible physical property.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental UnitIndependent ContractorTexas Tort Claims ActHealth Care LiabilityMedical MalpracticeNegligenceProgesterone InjectionTwin PregnancyWrongful Death
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McClure v. Landis

Rhonda Cramer McClure appealed the dismissal of her medical-malpractice lawsuit against physician Henry Landis and Interim Physicians, Inc. The case stemmed from McClure's failure to timely provide an expert medical report, as mandated by the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act, within 180 days of filing suit. McClure's attorney attributed the oversight to an accident or mistake, wherein a legal assistant inadvertently sent a letter instead of the required expert report. The appellate court found that the trial judge abused discretion by denying McClure's motion for a new trial, as the defendants failed to specifically controvert the evidence presented by McClure regarding the accidental nature of the omission. Consequently, the judgment of dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings.

medical malpracticeexpert reportdismissal with prejudicegrace periodaccident or mistakeconscious indifferencenew trial motionabuse of discretionTexas Medical Liability Actappellate review
References
7
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07401
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Matter of Carola B.-M. v. New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance

Petitioners Carola B.-M. and Tiara M. challenged the denial of their supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the Orleans County Department of Social Services. The benefits were denied because they were deemed ineligible college students. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this determination, holding that participation in the Adult Career and Continuing Education Services, Vocational Rehabilitation program (ACCES-VR) qualifies as a Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program. This status exempts the students from certain SNAP eligibility requirements. The court found that the original determination was based on an unreasonable interpretation of relevant regulations, annulled the decision, granted the petition, and remitted the case for a calculation of retroactive benefits.

SNAP benefitscollege student eligibilityJob Training Partnership ActACCES-VRvocational rehabilitationCPLR article 78regulatory interpretationpublic assistancefood stampsAppellate Division
References
28
Case No. 2018-06-2365
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2019

Bauknecht, Bauknecht, v Five Star Quality Care, Inc., d/b/a Morningside Assisted Living

Barbara Bauknecht, an employee of Five Star Quality Care, Inc., sustained a work injury to her low back on July 4, 2018, while assisting a patient. Her authorized treating physician, Dr. Edward Mackey, diagnosed sciatica and disc degeneration and recommended decompressive laminectomy and fusion surgery after non-operative treatments proved unsuccessful. The employer's carrier, Safety National Casualty Corp., initially denied the surgery. At an expedited hearing, the Court found Ms. Bauknecht met her burden to prove the medical necessity of the surgery, noting the presumption of necessity for treatment recommended by an authorized physician. Consequently, the Court granted the requested relief, ordering Five Star Quality Care to immediately authorize the recommended surgery.

Workers' Compensation ClaimsExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsBack SurgerySpinal FusionLaminectomySciaticaDisc DegenerationMedical NecessityAuthorized Treating Physician
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Quill v. Koppell

This case addresses the constitutionality of New York Penal Law §§ 125.15(3) and 120.30, which criminalize aiding suicide. Physician plaintiffs argue these laws violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment when applied to physicians assisting mentally competent, terminally ill adults seeking to avoid severe suffering. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of these statutes. Defendants moved for dismissal. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding no fundamental liberty interest in physician-assisted suicide under the Due Process Clause and no violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The court reasoned that the state has legitimate interests in preserving life and can distinguish between refusing medical treatment and actively assisting suicide.

Physician-assisted suicideDue Process ClauseEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentTerminal illnessRight to diePreliminary injunctionSummary judgmentCriminal statutesNew York Penal Law
References
16
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06853
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2020

Fornabaio v. Beacon Broadway Co., LLC

Plaintiff Anthony Fornabaio, while attending a concert at a venue owned by Beacon Broadway Company, LLC, experienced a medical incident and refused assistance from Transcare EMTs. He subsequently fell and was injured. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment for Beacon and Transcare but granted Beacon's cross-claims against Sports & Entertainment Physicians, P.C. (SEP) for indemnification and breach of contract for failing to procure insurance. The Appellate Division modified this order, granting Beacon's and Transcare's motions to dismiss the complaint, reasoning that their duty to assist terminated when Fornabaio refused help. The court affirmed SEP's liability to Beacon, noting SEP's cross-claim against Transcare for indemnification was not moot.

Summary JudgmentPersonal InjuryNegligenceConcert VenueEMT ServicesRefusal of Medical AssistanceContractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. 23-0697
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

State of Texas Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas Texas Medical Board Texas Health and Human Services Commission And Ken Paxton, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Lazaro Loe, Individually and as Next Friend of Luna Loe, a Minor Mary Moe and Matthew Moe, Individually and as Next Friends of Maeve Moe, a Minor Nora Noe, Individually and as Next Friend of Nathan Noe, a Minor Sarah Soe and Steven Soe, Individually and as Next Friends of Samantha Soe, a Minor Gina Goe, Individually and as Next Friend of Grayson Goe, a Minor Pflag, Inc. Richard Ogden Roberts III, M.D. David L. Paul, M.D. Patrick W. O'malley, M.D. And American Association of Physicians for Human

The Supreme Court of Texas reversed and vacated a temporary injunction against Senate Bill 14, which prohibits certain medical treatments for minors related to gender transition. Parents of children with gender dysphoria, along with physicians and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, had challenged the law as unconstitutional, alleging infringements on parental rights, occupational freedom for physicians, and discrimination based on sex and transgender status. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish a probable right to relief, asserting that parental rights are not absolute and the Legislature has constitutional authority to regulate medicine, especially regarding novel treatments for new conditions. The Court also found no unconstitutional discrimination, stating the law treats males and females equally in its prohibitions and that "transgender status" is not a protected class under the Texas Constitution.

Parental RightsMedical RegulationGender DysphoriaConstitutional LawDue Course of LawEqual ProtectionTransgender RightsMinors' Medical TreatmentLegislative AuthorityTexas Supreme Court
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 1981

Claim of Sanginario v. County of Monroe Pure Waters Division

The Workers' Compensation Board denied medical fee payments to an intervenor-appellant for treatment provided to a claimant. The initial treatment for a right arm and shoulder injury was performed by a physician’s assistant not under the supervision of an authorized physician. Although the claimant received compensation benefits for disability, the Board refused to pay medical bills submitted by Dr. Choi, an orthopedic specialist associated with the intervenor. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the Workers' Compensation Law requires authorization for treatment providers and does not permit unsupervised care by physician's assistants. This ruling underscored the importance of statutory compliance regarding medical services reimbursement in workers' compensation cases.

Medical Fees DenialPhysician's Assistant SupervisionAuthorization for TreatmentWorkers' Compensation LawMedical Provider QualificationsStatutory ComplianceAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmedMedical Service ReimbursementOrthopedic Injury
References
1
Case No. 2018-06-0451
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2019

Adiole v. Logan Senior Care, LLC

The employee, Vera Adiole, alleged a work-related low back injury and aggravation of a pre-existing hip condition from an accident at Logan Senior Care, LLC. After receiving authorized treatment, she sought additional medical care. The employer filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by opinions from three physicians, while the employee submitted a sworn declaration from a physician's assistant to establish causation. The trial court granted the employer's motion, concluding that the employee's evidence was insufficient. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that a physician's assistant is not qualified to offer expert opinion on medical causation and that the submitted opinions did not meet the statutory causation standards, thereby certifying the order as final.

Appellate ReviewSummary Judgment RulingMedical Expert OpinionPhysician Assistant QualificationsCausation in Workers' CompLumbar Back PainHip Arthritis AggravationPre-existing Medical ConditionBurden of ProofTennessee Legal Precedent
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 3,512 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