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. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. 03-96-00624-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 1997

Rhonda Cramer McClure v. Dr. Henry Landis and Interim Physicians, Inc.

Rhonda Cramer McClure appealed the dismissal of her medical-malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Henry Landis and Interim Physicians, Inc. The trial court dismissed her case with prejudice because she failed to provide a required expert report within 180 days, as mandated by the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act. McClure's attorney contended that this omission was an accident or mistake, qualifying her for a 30-day grace period under the Act, and promptly provided the report upon realizing the error. The appellate court found that the trial judge abused its discretion by denying McClure's motion for a new trial, as the defendants did not sufficiently controvert the evidence presented by McClure regarding the accidental nature of the failure to file. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Medical MalpracticeExpert ReportMedical Liability and Insurance Improvement ActDismissal with PrejudiceMotion for New TrialAccident or MistakeConscious IndifferenceTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureTexas Rules of Civil EvidenceAbuse of Discretion
References
8
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. 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
Feb 21, 2006

Rivera v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Russell Rivera, Jr. challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying him Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Frank Maas, who issued a Report and Recommendation to remand the action for further administrative proceedings, citing deficiencies in the plaintiff's hearing. After defendant objected to a time limit, an Amended Report and Recommendation was issued, omitting the disputed time limitation. District Judge Richard J. Holwell, finding no clear error, adopted the Amended Report in its entirety, granting the Commissioner’s motion. The court's decision was based on the Administrative Law Judge's failure to fully develop the administrative record and adequately consider the treating physician’s opinion, Dr. Asbury, whose findings differed from a nonexamining medical consultant.

Social Security BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeDisability DeterminationAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) ReviewRemand OrderTreating Physician RuleMedical AssessmentHIV/AIDS ImpairmentHepatitis C DiagnosisProcedural Error
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2004

Claim of Stoudenmyre v. Loretto Rest Nursing Home

Claimant, a personal care aide, sustained a foot injury and her workers' compensation claim was established. Subsequently, an independent medical examination (IME) report was requested to address permanency. Claimant moved to preclude the IME report, arguing it was improperly mailed by Brookside Consultants, Inc., an IME services company, instead of the physician, violating Workers' Compensation Law § 137. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the motion, which the Board affirmed. This Court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that properly registered IME services companies are authorized to perform administrative functions like mailing reports, thereby substantially complying with Workers' Compensation Law § 137, as established in Matter of Clark v Siara Mgt., Inc.

IME reportmailing proceduresWorkers' Compensation Lawadministrative functionspermanency of injuryindependent medical examinationmedical reportsreport submissionappellate reviewBoard affirmation
References
1
Case No. ADJ10975151
Regular
Jan 06, 2020

RUSSELL CAMARA vs. TESLA, INC., AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the Applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury to the lumbar spine. The Applicant's primary treating physician (PTP) designated a secondary physician to evaluate permanent and stationary status and impairment, whose report the PTP adopted. The defense challenged the validity of this secondary physician's report, arguing only the Panel Qualified Medical Examiner's (PQME) report was properly obtained. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, affirming that the PTP, or a physician designated by the PTP, is authorized to render opinions on medical issues, provided proper notice and procedural requirements are met. The Board found the designation and subsequent report were compliant with Labor Code and Administrative Director Regulations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPrimary Treating PhysicianQualified Medical ExaminerLabor Code Section 4061.5Permanent and Stationary ReportMedical-Legal EvaluationSecondary PhysicianAdministrative Director Rule 9785Designation of Physician
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Billy Overstreet v. TRW Commercial Steering Division

This concurring opinion by Judge William C. Koch, Jr. addresses the legal basis for prohibiting ex parte communications between an employer's counsel and an employee's treating physician in a Workers' Compensation Act claim. While the Court's main conclusion relies on an implied-in-law contract theory, Judge Koch advocates for a fiduciary duty stemming from the physician-patient relationship. He clarifies that physicians have a duty of non-disclosure, subject to statutory exceptions for workers' compensation reports, but these exceptions do not permit ex parte communications. The opinion asserts that employees retain their medical privacy unless explicitly altered by law.

Physician-patient privilegeConfidentialityEx parte communicationWorkers' CompensationFiduciary dutyImplied contractMedical records disclosureHIPAALegal ethicsPatient rights
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Quail v. Central New York Psychiatric Center

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that awarded a 10% schedule loss of use of the right hand. The WCB's decision was based on a September 1998 report from the carrier's consultant, which found a 10% loss. The claimant's treating physician had reportedly found a 20% loss in a July 1998 report, but this report was not properly filed. Despite multiple directives to submit a final medical report from the treating physician, claimant failed to do so before the WCLJ's decision. After the WCLJ's ruling, claimant submitted a newly prepared report from his treating physician indicating a 20% loss. The Board declined to consider this new evidence, citing its discretion to refuse evidence that could have been presented earlier. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in their refusal to consider the late evidence.

Schedule Loss of UseRight Hand InjuryMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionFailure to Submit EvidenceTreating Physician ReportCarrier Consultant ReportProcedural IssuesPermanency Determination
References
2
Case No. ADJ6948621 ADJ7946738
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

STEFANO MUSETTI vs. GOLDEN GATE DISPOSAL & RECYCLING dba RECOLOGY, permissibly self-insured, administered by CORVEL CORP.

In this workers' compensation case, the employer sought reconsideration of an award ordering a total knee replacement. The applicant's treating physician recommended the surgery, but the employer argued the award was premature as a panel qualified medical evaluator's report was pending and the treating physician's report lacked proper authorization markings. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the employer had sufficient time to obtain the PQME report and that the treating physician's report constituted substantial medical evidence supporting the surgery. The Board also noted that the employer failed to initiate utilization review despite being aware of the treatment request.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injuryright kneegarbage collectortotal knee replacementsupplemental reportpanel qualified medical evaluator (PQME)treating physiciansubstantial medical evidencePetition for Reconsideration
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 7,622 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