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. 2016-07-0772
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2017

Jacks, Bonnie v. Camden Healthcare/Northpoint Senior Services, LLC

Bonnie Jacks, an employee of Northpoint, sustained a left shoulder injury in 2015. She requested an expedited hearing for additional medical benefits and approval of physician referrals to orthopedic and pain management specialists, as well as payment of outstanding medical bills. The employer, Northpoint, failed to provide a panel of physicians as required by law, instead offering Dr. Berry and later accepting a referral to Dr. Chandler. The Court found Ms. Jacks entitled to a panel of physicians for an orthopedic evaluation and ordered Northpoint to approve Dr. Berry’s referral to Tennessee Orthopedic Alliance. Additionally, Northpoint was ordered to pay Dr. Berry's outstanding bills totaling $340.00. The Court denied Ms. Jacks' counsel's request for attorney's fees but referred the case to the Penalty Unit for consideration of a penalty against Northpoint for failing to timely provide a panel of physicians.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingPhysician PanelOrthopedic ReferralPain ManagementAttorney's Fees DeniedPenalty Unit ReferralRotator Cuff TearShoulder Injury
References
3
Case No. 2022-08-0195
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2022

Evans, Antron v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.

Mr. Antron Evans requested a panel of psychiatrists, attorney's fees, and payment of a medical bill following a store robbery where he sustained a head injury. Family Dollar, the employer, contended he was not entitled to a psychiatric panel without a referral from an authorized physician, disputed the medical bill, and denied wrongfully denying the claim for attorney's fees. The Court denied Mr. Evans's requests for a psychiatric panel and payment of the emergency room bill, citing the statutory requirement of a panel physician's referral for psychiatric services and lack of proof for the medical bill. However, the Court granted his request for attorney's fees due to Family Dollar's five-month delay in timely initiating medical benefits. Additionally, Family Dollar was referred to the Compliance Program for potential penalties concerning the late filing of the First Report of Injury and the untimely provision of a panel of physicians.

Workers' CompensationMedical Benefits DenialAttorney's Fees GrantEmployer PenaltiesExpedited HearingPsychiatric ReferralStatutory InterpretationLate Claim ProcessingFirst Report of Injury DelayPost-Traumatic Stress
References
6
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. 2020-06-0867
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2020

Randolph, Kevin v. R & M ELECTRIC, INC.

Kevin Randolph, an employee, suffered a severe injury when he fell approximately fifteen feet while working. He requested treatment with Dr. Sravani Mehta, a specialist in traumatic brain injuries, after a referral from Dr. James Ho, an optometrist. The employer, R & M Electric, Inc., and its insurer, The Hartford, denied the request, stating that the authorized treating physician, Dr. Anna-Louise Mollete, never made the referral. The Court affirmed that Tennessee law allows referrals only from physicians or chiropractors, not optometrists, and found that the employer did not waive its right to object by honoring prior non-physician referrals. Consequently, the Court denied Mr. Randolph's request for treatment with Dr. Mehta.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsReferral PolicyOptometristPhysicianEmployer ResponsibilityWaiver DoctrineStatutory InterpretationTraumatic Brain InjuryTennessee Law
References
7
Case No. ADJ916063 (VNO 0541860)
Regular
Mar 10, 2011

TERRY SCUDDER vs. VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC.; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns an applicant who sustained industrial injuries and pre-designated a physician outside of the employer's established Medical Provider Network (MPN). The applicant's attorney subsequently referred him to physicians outside the MPN, whose reports were admitted by the WCJ. The Appeals Board overturned this, ruling that only the pre-designated physician, or referrals from that physician, could be outside the MPN and that referrals by an attorney were invalid. Consequently, the reports of these outside physicians were inadmissible, and the issues decided based on them were returned for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPNPre-designationTreating PhysicianQualified Medical EvaluatorQMEPermanent and Stationary DateApportionmentSelf-Procured Medical Treatment
References
1
Case No. 2018-01-0349
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2019

Rhodes, Jason v. Amazon.com, LLC

Jason Rhodes, an employee of Amazon, sustained a foot injury and sought medical care and temporary partial disability benefits. The dispute arose when Mr. Rhodes declined to see an orthopedist referred by Amazon's authorized treating physician, Dr. Natasha Ballard, citing distance, and instead saw Dr. Jesse Doty. Mr. Rhodes argued that Amazon's practice of directing referrals to a single orthopedist effectively usurped his right to choose a physician under Tennessee law. The Court found Amazon's method of compelling referrals to a specific specialist by removing the treating physician's neutrality was contrary to the spirit of the direct-referral statute. Consequently, the Court ordered Amazon to provide a new panel of orthopedists and to pay Mr. Rhodes temporary partial disability benefits for the period he was out of work.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Partial DisabilityPhysician ChoiceEmployer Referral PolicyOrthopedist PanelCommunity of ResidenceMedical Treatment DisputeFoot Injury
References
4
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. 2019-07-0453
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2021

Hoss, Mary v. Corecivic, Inc.

Ms. Mary Hoss sustained various injuries, including trauma to her throat, after being attacked by an inmate at Corecivic's facility. Her treating physician, Dr. James Berry, diagnosed dysphagia and GERD, and later referred her for speech therapy due to vocal cord swelling. Corecivic disputed that the need for speech therapy was causally related to her workplace injury, questioning the physician's consistent opinion. However, the Court, referencing the Beech v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. precedent, determined that the relevant issue was whether a treating physician made a referral to a specialist. Concluding that Dr. Berry did make such a referral, the Court ordered Corecivic to provide the recommended speech therapy.

Workplace InjurySpeech TherapyMedical BenefitsDysphagiaGERDVocal Cord EdemaExpedited HearingCausationTreating Physician ReferralWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
3
Case No. 2022-08-1069
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2025

Morris, Damon Curry v. Select Services

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee claimed he suffered arm and shoulder injuries due to an alleged workplace assault committed by his supervisor. The employer denied the assault occurred and denied the employee sustained any work-related injuries. Pursuant to a prior expedited hearing order, the employer provided a panel of physicians and authorized limited medical treatment. Thereafter, an MRI revealed a small partial tear in the left rotator cuff. The employer declined to approve additional treatment recommended by the authorized physician and declined to approve the authorized physician’s referral to a specialist. As a result, the employee requested another expedited hearing, after which the trial court ordered the employer to authorize the referral to a specialist for evaluation and treatment of the left shoulder despite acknowledging the lack of any expert medical evidence indicating that the employee’s left shoulder condition was primarily caused by the alleged workplace assault. Upon careful consideration of the record, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case.

Workplace InjuryShoulder InjuryRotator CuffMedical CausationExpedited HearingEmployer LiabilityEmployee Burden of ProofInterlocutory AppealRemandSubsequent Injury Fund
References
8
Case No. E2019-00554-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2020

Highlands Physicians, Inc. v. Wellmont Health System

This class action lawsuit involved Highlands Physicians, Inc. (HPI) alleging that Wellmont Health System breached an agreement and its fiduciary duties, leading to over $57 million in damages awarded by a jury. The trial court also awarded HPI over $5 million in attorney's fees, which Wellmont appealed. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in not submitting the attorney's fee issue to the jury, thus vacating that award and remanding for a jury determination. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in all other respects, including the jury's findings on breach of contract and intentional interference with business relationships. The court also affirmed the trial court's summary judgment rulings regarding contract interpretation and third-party beneficiaries, as well as the denial of prejudgment interest.

Class ActionBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyIntentional InterferenceContract InterpretationThird-Party BeneficiaryAttorney's FeesDamages AwardSummary Judgment ProcedureExpert Witness Testimony
References
91
Showing 1-10 of 2,697 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