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. 15-25-00023-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2025

The State of Texas v. Nonparty Patient No. 1, Nonparty Patient No. 2, Nonparty Patient No. 3, Nonparty Patient No. 4, Nonparty Patient No. 5, Nonparty Patient No. 6, Nonparty Patient No. 7, and Nonparty Patient No. 8, Nonparty Patient No. 9, Nonparty Patient No. 10, and Nonparty Patient No. 11

This case involves an appeal by the State of Texas against the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and plea in abatement. The State, as appellant, initially sued Dr. May C. Lau in Collin County, alleging violations of SB 14 and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and issued subpoenas in Dallas County to obtain medical records of 21 nonparty patients. The appellees, eleven nonparty patients, challenged these subpoenas in Dallas County, asserting physician-patient and mental health information privileges under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 176.6(e) and 192.6(a). The State argues that sovereign immunity prevents the Dallas County court from hearing these challenges and that the only proper forum is Collin County. The appellees contend that the Texas Supreme Court precedent dictates that rules of civil procedure apply to the State unless explicitly carved out, and that common law principles of sovereign immunity do not extend to discovery disputes.

Sovereign ImmunityDiscovery DisputeSubpoena ChallengeMedical RecordsPatient PrivilegeMental Health PrivilegeRules of Civil ProcedureRules of EvidenceAppellate LawPlea to Jurisdiction
References
191
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re an Application to Quash a Subpoena Duces Tecum in Grand Jury Proceedings

The New York Court of Appeals held that a hospital under Grand Jury investigation for alleged crimes against patients (e.g., "no coding") cannot assert physician-patient or social worker-client privileges, or the patient’s right to privacy, to quash subpoenas for medical records. The court reasoned that these privileges are intended to protect patients, not to shield potential criminals. Additionally, the conditional privilege for material prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101 [d]) does not apply to Grand Jury subpoenas. The decision affirmed the denial of motions to quash subpoenas related to patients Maria M. and Daisy S., emphasizing the broad investigative powers of the Grand Jury.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumPhysician-Patient PrivilegeSocial Worker-Client PrivilegePatient PrivacyMaterial Prepared for LitigationHospital InvestigationMedicaid Fraud ControlCriminal ActivityNo Coding
References
5
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

People v. Easter

This case involves a defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment on grounds of insufficient evidence before the Grand Jury, selective enforcement, and in the interest of justice. The core issue revolves around the admissibility of privileged communications, specifically social worker-client, physician-patient, and husband-wife privileges, presented to the Grand Jury. The defendant is accused of child abuse against his three-month-old son, Jason, who sustained a fractured skull, ribs, and other injuries. The court found that the physician-patient privilege was waived under CPLR 4504(b) due to child abuse. The husband-wife privilege did not apply to Mrs. Easter's testimony as it was not a confidential marital communication. Crucially, the court determined that the child, Jason, was the "client" of the social workers under CPLR 4508(3), thus allowing their testimony regarding the defendant's admissions of harming the child. Consequently, the social workers' testimony was deemed competent and properly considered by the Grand Jury. The court also rejected the argument for Miranda warnings, stating the defendant was not in custody. The motion to dismiss the indictment based on insufficiency of evidence was denied.

Motion to Dismiss IndictmentGrand Jury Evidence SufficiencyPrivileged Communications AdmissibilitySocial Worker-Client Privilege ExceptionChild Abuse ProceedingsPhysician-Patient PrivilegeHusband-Wife Privilege ScopeMiranda RightsCPLR 4508 Child ClientCriminal Procedure Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Gearhart

This case involves a defendant's motion to renew a prior omnibus motion seeking dismissal of an indictment. The defendant argued that a physician's testimony before the Grand Jury violated physician-patient privilege, asserting that Social Services Law §§413 and 415 do not create an exception for child abuse cases in criminal prosecutions. The court, led by Judge Raymond Harrington, reviewed arguments from both the defendant and The People, along with an amicus curiae brief. The court ultimately denied the defendant's renewal motion, adhering to its original decision. It concluded that the Legislature intended to suspend the physician-patient privilege in judicial proceedings concerning child abuse or maltreatment, including criminal prosecutions, to facilitate the protection of children and prosecution of abusers.

Child Abuse Prevention ActPhysician-Patient PrivilegeCriminal IndictmentMotion to DismissGrand Jury EvidenceStatutory InterpretationPublic PolicyDue Process ChallengeChild ProtectionConfidential Communications
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. People

This opinion addresses an application filed by an unnamed hospital, referred to as the 'Petitioner,' seeking to quash two Grand Jury subpoenas duces tecum. These subpoenas, issued in August 1982 by the Deputy Attorney-General for Medicaid fraud control, sought patient medical records, including 'progress notes' and 'mechanical ventilation flow sheets.' The hospital argued against disclosure based on patient privacy rights and the physician-patient privilege. The court, presided over by Justice George J. Balbach, denied the application, reaffirming that a hospital under investigation for potential crimes against its patients cannot assert these privileges to obstruct a Grand Jury investigation. The decision emphasized the Grand Jury's broad investigatory powers and the principle that privileges are intended to protect patients, not shield alleged wrongdoers.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumPhysician-Patient PrivilegePatient PrivacyMedicaid Fraud ControlHospital RecordsConfidentialityQuash SubpoenaCriminal InvestigationStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Sergio

The court addresses a defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment for murder, manslaughter, and endangering the welfare of a child. The defendant, Laura Sergio, argued that privileged physician-patient communications were improperly used before the grand jury and that the evidence was legally insufficient. The court, presided over by Joel M. Goldberg, J., ruled that the physician-patient privilege was overcome by exceptions under Social Services Law and the Tarasoff doctrine, allowing disclosure of limited medical information due to public safety concerns. Furthermore, the court found the evidence presented to the grand jury legally sufficient to support the charges, despite possible alternative inferences. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment was denied in its entirety, and the case will proceed.

Criminal LawIndictmentGrand JuryPhysician-Patient PrivilegeConfidentialityChild AbuseHomicideManslaughterMurderDepraved Indifference
References
43
Case No. ADJ8396609
Regular
Sep 20, 2013

KELLY SNOW vs. HEALTH NET, INC., SEDGWICK CMS

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, rescinding prior orders that compelled the release of her psychotherapist's records and quashed subpoenas. The applicant argued these records were privileged psychotherapist-patient communications, and the therapist was not a physician or psychologist, thus their records were not discoverable for QME review. The Board found that while the psychotherapist-patient privilege exists, it is subject to waiver when mental condition is placed in issue by the patient, but this waiver is limited to relevant records. The case was returned to the trial level to determine if Ms. Bradley's records are relevant to the disclosed psychiatric injury or unrelated.

Petition for RemovalPetition to Quash Subpoena Duces TecumPsychotherapist-patient privilegeQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code section 3209.3Administrative Director Rule 35Evidence Code section 1010Holder of the privilegeEvidence Code section 1013Evidence Code section 1014
References
3
Case No. 533089
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2021

Matter of Barden v. General Physicians PC

Claimant, a patient services representative, sought to amend her workers' compensation claim to include left shoulder aggravation after a work-related injury to her right shoulder. The Workers' Compensation Board disallowed this request, finding that claimant failed to provide sufficient credible medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between her employment and the left shoulder condition. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The court noted that the claimant's treating physician opined the left shoulder pathology was largely preexisting and unrelated to the work injury, and other medical opinions either lacked sufficient weight or were based on inaccurate information, providing no basis to disturb the Board's finding.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryCausationMedical EvidencePreexisting ConditionAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionClaim AmendmentPatient Services Representative
References
10
Case No. No. 04-00-00629-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2001

Rios v. DEPT. OF MHMR

Tereso De Jesus Rios was involved in an automobile collision with Juan Cazares, an employee of the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (MHMR). Rios and his wife, Rose, sued MHMR for personal injury, loss of household services, and loss of consortium. The jury found Rios 35% negligent and MHMR 65% negligent, awarding Rios $5,000 for past medical costs and zero damages to Mrs. Rios. Appellants raised issues concerning doctor-patient privilege, contributory negligence, and damages for pain and suffering on appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding no violation of physician-patient privilege, upholding the contributory negligence finding, and reconciling the jury's findings on medical expenses and zero pain and suffering damages.

Physician-patient privilegeContributory negligenceDamagesPain and sufferingExpert witness testimonyAutomobile accidentMedical evidenceJury verdictAppellate procedureRule of Evidence 509
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 3,235 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