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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. Gross

The case involves an appeal by a podiatrist (defendant) from an order that dismissed their affirmative defense based on the Statute of Limitations for medical malpractice. The core issue is the interpretation of “medical malpractice” as used in CPLR 214-a, specifically whether it applies to malpractice actions against podiatrists. The court examines other statutes enacted by chapter 109 of the Laws of 1975, which defined “medical malpractice” in the context of licensed physicians and hospitals. Based on these related statutes, the court concludes that CPLR 214-a's abbreviated Statute of Limitations applies only to physicians and hospitals, not to podiatrists. Therefore, the order dismissing the defendant's affirmative defense was affirmed.

MalpracticePodiatryStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214-aStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentMedical Malpractice InsuranceProfessional RegulationAppellate ReviewJudicial District
References
12
Case No. ADJ9298433
Regular
Mar 28, 2017

ERNEST ALEXANDER vs. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC; LOWES; SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal of an order for additional QME panels. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which the defendant failed to demonstrate. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, noting the petition was unverified and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The WCJ found good cause existed for the additional panels due to disputed body parts and the limitations of the initial podiatrist's specialty.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationunverified petitionForm 31.7good causeQME panels
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McMillan v. Dodsworth

The claimant, a podiatrist's assistant, was attacked by her sister with a hammer at her workplace. The employer was aware of previous disputes and had installed locks for security, though the doors were unlocked during the incident. Initially, the Workers’ Compensation Board awarded benefits, finding the injury compensable due to a work-related risk. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the assault stemmed from purely personal differences and was unrelated to the claimant's employment. The court also found insufficient evidence to establish a dangerous work environment, leading to the dismissal of the claim.

Assault at workplacePersonal disputeCompensable injuryAppellate reviewLack of substantial evidenceEmployer liabilityWorkplace safetyClaim dismissedReversal
References
4
Case No. ADJ7817116, ADJ7875974
Regular
Nov 13, 2012

Karen Swanson vs. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's claim that the prior award of medical treatment lacked substantial medical evidence. The Board affirmed the necessity of a Nurse Case Manager, a power-assisted wheelchair, podiatrist visits, and a consultation with Dr. Kodama based on stipulations and medical opinion. However, the Board found insufficient evidence for other requested treatments like physical therapy, home modifications, housekeeping, a wheelchair-accessible van, and social worker visits. Jurisdiction was reserved for these deferred issues pending further development of the medical record, including a home modifications consultation.

WCABAmended Findings and OrderPetition for Reconsiderationsubstantial medical evidenceLabor Code section 4604.5Nurse Case Managerpower-assisted wheelchairpodiatristDr. Kodamadysphagia
References
17
Case No. 2016-08-1299
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2017

Halmon, Regina v. Contemporary Services Corporation

Regina Halmon, an employee of Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC), filed a claim for medical benefits, alleging a left foot injury from a co-worker stepping on her toe on June 9, 2016. She asserted timely notice to her employer, which CSC denied. Ms. Halmon saw Dr. Nathan Coleman, a podiatrist, who noted no work-related injury in his initial records, with the alleged incident first appearing in September after a toe amputation. The Expedited Hearing addressed notice and causation, with the court finding Ms. Halmon failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate she was likely to prevail on the notice issue. Consequently, her claim for medical benefits against CSC was denied.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsNotice of InjuryCausationLeft Foot InjurySurgical AmputationPodiatristEmployer's Notice DutyEmployee Burden of Proof
References
4
Case No. 03-05-00620-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2008

Texas Orthopaedic Association, Texas Medical Association and Andrew M. Kant, M.D. v. Texas State Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners Texas Podiatric Medical Association And Bruce A. Scudday, D.P.M.

The Texas Orthopaedic Association and others challenged a rule by the Texas State Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners that defined 'foot' to include portions of the ankle and soft tissues extending into the leg. Appellants argued this rule impermissibly expanded the scope of podiatry beyond its statutory definition and intruded into the practice of medicine. The district court initially found the rule valid. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the Board exceeded its authority. The appellate court concluded that the rule's expansive definition authorized podiatrists to treat anatomical features located well above the traditional foot and ankle, which is inconsistent with the occupations code and constitutes an unauthorized practice of medicine.

Podiatry ScopeRegulatory AuthorityStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Rule ValidityMedical Practice ActTexas Occupations CodeDeclaratory JudgmentAnkle TreatmentFoot DefinitionMedical Licensing Board
References
29
Case No. 03-05-00620-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2008

Janie Morales And Terrie Secaida, Community Administrator of the Estate of Edward Secaida v. Chard Richard Craig Wheaton Van Lines, Inc. And Johnnie P. Williams

This case addresses an appeal concerning the validity of an administrative rule promulgated by the Texas State Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners, which defined the term 'foot' to include portions of the ankle and soft tissues extending into the leg. The appellants, the Texas Orthopaedic Association, Texas Medical Association, and Andrew M. Kant, M.D., argued that this rule impermissibly expanded the statutory scope of podiatric practice. The district court initially upheld the rule's validity. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, concluding that the Board exceeded its authority by adopting a definition that authorized podiatrists to treat anatomical features well above the ankle, thereby encroaching upon the unauthorized practice of medicine and exceeding the traditional scope of podiatry.

Scope of PracticePodiatryMedical LawAdministrative Rule ValidityStatutory InterpretationTexas Occupations CodeDeclaratory JudgmentMedical Board AuthorityAnkle TreatmentFoot Definition
References
22
Case No. CV-23-1834
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Arnold Gunness

Claimant Arnold Gunness appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied his claim for benefits regarding injuries to his neck, back, and left knee. Gunness alleged these injuries were causally related to a June 2020 workplace incident. The Board found that he failed to provide competent medical evidence of a causal relationship, noting inconsistencies in his accounts to medical providers and issues with the expert opinions presented. Specifically, a podiatrist's opinion was disregarded as outside his specialty, and a physiatrist's opinion lacked a rational basis regarding the mechanism of injury. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence and within the Board's authority to reject the claimant's medical evidence of causation.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimNeck InjuryBack InjuryLeft Knee InjuryFoot Fracture
References
7
Case No. 534239
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Lorna Lyman

Lorna Lyman, a motorized snow operator, sustained lower back and right foot injuries in January 2018. Her workers' compensation claim was accepted and established for a work-related right foot injury, leading to surgery. Medical evaluations by treating podiatrist Carrie O'Neil and orthopedic surgeon Robert Karpman initially assessed schedule loss of use. However, the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding that her injury was amenable to a nonschedule classification. This decision was based on findings of a chronic painful condition and marked permanent partial medical impairment, supported by substantial medical evidence of chronic pain and severe swelling despite exhausted treatment options. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision.

Nonschedule classificationPermanent partial disabilityChronic painFoot injurySchedule loss of useMedical impairmentIndependent medical examinationTreating physicianAppellate reviewSubstantial evidence
References
6
Case No. 03-04-00253-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Orthopaedic Ass'n v. Texas State Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners

The Texas State Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners (the "Board") promulgated a rule defining "foot" to include portions of the ankle and soft tissues extending into the leg. The Texas Orthopaedic Association, Texas Medical Association, and Andrew M. Kant, M.D. (appellants) challenged this rule, arguing it impermissibly expanded the scope of podiatry. The district court upheld the rule, but the appellate court reversed its judgment. The appellate court concluded that the Board exceeded its authority because the rule's definition authorized podiatrists to treat body parts outside the traditional scope of podiatry, such as nerves and veins along the leg, constituting unauthorized medical practice. The court rejected arguments regarding legislative acceptance and the rule's reasonableness, finding it inconsistent with existing statutes.

PodiatryScope of PracticeAdministrative RuleStatutory InterpretationMedical Practice ActAnkle TreatmentDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawMedical Licensing
References
55
Showing 1-10 of 15 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