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. 01-14-00767-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

People v. Ackerson

In a felony driving while intoxicated trial, defendant Scott Ackerson moved to preclude the testimony of an emergency medical technician (EMT), Diane Wood, citing the physician-patient privilege under CPLR 4504(a). The court denied the motion, stating that evidentiary privileges, being in derogation of common law, must be strictly construed. The Legislature has not explicitly extended this privilege to EMTs, despite creating other specific privileges. The court found no evidence that the EMT acted as an agent for a physician. The opinion emphasized that an EMT's role is to stabilize patients, distinct from a physician's role of diagnosis and treatment, thus not falling within the purpose of the CPLR 4504 privilege.

PrivilegeEmergency Medical TechnicianEMTPhysician-Patient PrivilegeCPLR 4504Statutory InterpretationEvidentiary PrivilegeFelony DWITestimony PreclusionAgency
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. ADJ9126926
Regular
May 09, 2014

TERESA GREGORY vs. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

Defendant Contra Costa County petitioned for removal to compel a UR physician's testimony regarding a disputed knee injection. The WCJ had ordered the physician to appear for live testimony over defendant's objection. However, at the scheduled hearing, the WCJ removed the case from the calendar, stating the knee injection had already occurred and no pending issues remained. Consequently, the petition for removal was dismissed as moot because the UR physician's testimony was no longer necessary.

Petition for RemovalUtilization ReviewExpedited HearingLive TestimonyWCJMOOTDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRescind OrderGood Cause
References
0
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. VNO 0272543, VNO 0246317
Regular
May 12, 2008

JOSE ACEVES vs. FERNANDO AUTO SALES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted the State Compensation Insurance Fund's petition for removal, overturning an interim decision that disallowed direct testimony from defendant's medical witnesses. The Board ruled that the restrictions on direct medical witness testimony in Rules 10606 and 10727 do not apply when physicians are testifying as percipient witnesses to issues like billing practices or illegal supervision of aides, rather than about the treatment of specific injured workers. Therefore, the testimony of these physicians is now allowed at trial.

Removal petitionInterim Findings and Awarddirect examinationmedical witnessespercipient witnessesadministrative proceduresbilling practicesscope of practiceLabor Code section 5708WCAB Rules 10606
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Van Dam v. New Paltz Central School District

The claimant, a teacher, sought workers' compensation benefits for illnesses she claimed were work-related. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board denied her claim. This denial was based on the ruling that her physician's testimony and records could not be considered because the physician was not authorized under the Workers’ Compensation Law to render medical care. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, clarifying that while Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-b (1) prevents unauthorized physicians from receiving payment for services, it does not create an evidentiary barrier to their testimony and records. The case was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationMedical EvidencePhysician AuthorizationEvidentiary RuleAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationClaimant's RightsBoard DecisionNew York Labor LawMedical Testimony
References
4
Case No. 2015-01-0055
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2015

Scott, Susan v. Integrity Staffing Solutions

The employee, Susan Scott, alleged a left shoulder injury at work. The employer's panel physician, Dr. Neil Spitalny, opined no work-related injury, attributing symptoms to preexisting conditions. The trial court disregarded Dr. Spitalny's opinion, relying on the employee's lay testimony, and ordered medical benefits with a different physician, while denying temporary disability benefits. Both parties appealed to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Appeals Board reversed the trial court's order for medical benefits, finding it erred in disregarding the treating physician's causation opinion and in relying solely on lay testimony. The Board affirmed the denial of temporary disability benefits and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationMedical CausationLay TestimonyTreating Physician PresumptionTemporary Disability BenefitsAppeals BoardEmployer PanelExpert Medical EvidenceRule 703 EvidencePreexisting Conditions
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haley v. Dyersburg Fabrics, Inc.

Appellant suffered a severe hand injury during employment in April 1984, which resulted in a permanent "claw" hand condition. The trial judge initially dismissed the claim for permanent partial disability, asserting that the injury was not directly caused by the work accident, based on the interpreting physician's testimony. However, the appellate court clarified that the medical testimony did not preclude an indirect causal link, aggravation of a pre-existing condition, or the impact of subsequent medical treatment. The court also affirmed the admissibility of a non-treating physician's testimony, which had assessed a significant permanent impairment. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, underscoring the employer's responsibility for the work-related injury.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical CausationAggravation of Pre-existing ConditionAdmissibility of Medical TestimonyClaw HandOrthopedic InjuryRemandMaterial Evidence RuleCausation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Carr v. Cairo Fire District

Claimant, a volunteer firefighter, sustained a right hand fracture and subsequently developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and ulnar nerve compression, which his treating physician and a first independent medical examination (IME) linked to his work injury. The employer's workers' compensation carrier disputed the claim after a second IME found no carpal tunnel syndrome. During a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) proceeding, the WCLJ amended the claim to include consequential injuries without taking sworn testimony or allowing the carrier to cross-examine the claimant or his treating physician. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the carrier was improperly denied its right to present testimony and cross-examine the treating physician, thereby prejudicing the employer. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationVolunteer FirefighterCarpal Tunnel SyndromeUlnar Nerve CompressionIndependent Medical ExaminationRight to TestimonyCross-ExaminationProcedural Due ProcessEvidentiary HearingAppellate Review
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 5,939 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