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 Handicapped Child

The Orchard Park Central School District (District) sought a court-ordered subpoena for psychiatric and psychological records of an infant student from the Western New York Children’s Psychiatric Center. The District intended to use these records in an appeal initiated by the student's parents concerning the child's handicapping condition. The parents cross-moved to quash the subpoena, asserting the records were privileged and their consent for release had been withdrawn. Justice Thomas P. Flaherty ruled that no legislative exception existed to abrogate the physician-patient and psychologist-client privileges in this context, especially over parental objection. Consequently, the court denied the District's motion for the subpoena and granted the parents' cross-motion to quash, underscoring the protection of confidential communications in a child's best interests.

Education LawStudent RecordsPsychiatric RecordsPsychological RecordsPrivilegeSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashParental RightsCommittee on HandicappedFair Hearing
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Fratt

The defendant, charged with second-degree murder, provided notice of intent to present psychiatric evidence from Dr. Martha Rosen, a defense-retained psychologist, who would testify about dependent personality disorder and 'battered woman's syndrome.' The prosecution subsequently moved for an order compelling Dr. Rosen to prepare a report outlining her findings and evaluations, and for the discovery of her notes. The court granted the prosecution's motion, ruling that the defendant waived psychologist-patient privilege by placing her mental state at issue. The court further held that CPL 250.10, read in conjunction with CPLR 3101(d), requires the defense to provide a detailed notice of psychiatric evidence, including expert qualifications, examination details, relied-upon materials, diagnostic opinions, and the bases for those opinions. The court denied the motion for a pretrial hearing as premature.

Psychiatric EvidenceDiscoveryExpert TestimonyPsychologist-Patient PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeCriminal Procedure LawCivil Practice Law and RulesMental StateBattered Woman's SyndromeForensic Evaluation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Koenigsmark v. State

Claimant, with a history of schizophrenia and suicidal tendencies, escaped Elmira Psychiatric Center and attempted suicide. The dissent argues that the Court of Claims erred in dismissing the claim, asserting that Elmira was negligent. The negligence stemmed from systemic failures in patient record-keeping, communication of doctor's orders, reporting changes in patient behavior, and facility security. These omissions, according to the dissent, constituted common-law negligence, not mere errors in medical judgment, warranting a reversal of the lower court's dismissal and remittal for a trial on damages.

negligencepsychiatric caresuicide attempthospital liabilitypatient supervisionmedical malpracticemental health facilityrecord keeping failurecommunication breakdownsecurity inadequacy
References
7
Case No. 03-17-00666-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2018

Facility Insurance Corporation v. Patients Medical Center

This appeal arises from a medical fee dispute under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act between Facility Insurance Corporation (Carrier) and Patients Medical Center (Provider). The Carrier challenged a trial court's judgment that affirmed a SOAH Decision and Order, mandating the Carrier to pay the Provider $20,495.78 for medical services. The primary issue was whether the administrative law judge (ALJ) incorrectly shifted the burden of proof from the Provider to the Carrier during the contested-case hearing. The Court of Appeals found that the Provider, as the party seeking affirmative relief, bore the burden of proof in the de novo hearing. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case to the Division for new proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Workers' Compensation ActMedical Fee DisputeBurden of ProofAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ)SOAH DecisionJudicial ReviewSubstantial Evidence RuleTexas Department of InsuranceSpinal Cord StimulatorReimbursement Claim
References
25
Case No. 03-00-00766-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2002

Jacqueline Tomhave v. the Oaks Psychiatric Hospital, Inc.

Jacqueline Tomhave, a therapist, was terminated by The Oaks Psychiatric Hospital after inquiring about an alleged inappropriate relationship between an employee and a juvenile resident. She claimed whistleblower protection under the Texas Health & Safety Code, asserting a causal link between her report and termination. The hospital moved for summary judgment, arguing Tomhave was fired for violating various policies and procedures concerning the juvenile's treatment and discharge. This dissenting opinion contends that Tomhave failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut the hospital's legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons, arguing that temporal proximity and subjective belief alone are insufficient. The dissent concludes that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in the hospital's favor.

Whistleblower ActRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawMental Health FacilityPolicy ViolationsTherapist TerminationTravis CountyTexas Court of AppealsCausation Element
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mott v. Central New York Psychiatric Center

The claimant, a guard at a state-run psychiatric center, suffered a work-related injury and received workers’ compensation benefits. During his disability, he used personal leave time for which he received full wages. The employer sought reimbursement for these advance payments, but the Workers’ Compensation Board denied reimbursement for the personal leave portion. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, differentiating personal leave from sick leave by noting that personal leave could not be accrued or converted, thus not conferring a permanent benefit to the employer or a detriment to the claimant. The court concluded that denying reimbursement would result in the claimant receiving both full wages and compensation for the same period, a disfavored outcome, and therefore, reimbursement should be granted.

ReimbursementAdvance PaymentsPersonal LeaveSick LeaveWorkers' Compensation BenefitsDisabilityEmployer ReimbursementDisproportionate ResultAppellate DivisionNew York
References
9
Case No. 19-0533
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2021

Patients Medical Center v. Facility Insurance Corporation

This case is an administrative appeal stemming from a medical fee dispute between Patients Medical Center, a healthcare provider, and Facility Insurance Corporation, a worker's compensation insurance carrier. The core issue revolves around the proper allocation of the burden of proof in a contested case hearing before the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) following an initial decision by the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation. While the Division and the ALJ initially placed the burden on the carrier, the court of appeals reversed. The Texas Supreme Court, however, reversed the court of appeals, holding that the burden of proof lies with the party seeking relief from the Division's initial decision, which in this case was the carrier. The Supreme Court remanded the case for the court of appeals to address other unaddressed issues.

Worker's CompensationMedical Fee DisputeAdministrative LawBurden of ProofTexas Supreme CourtAppellate ReviewInsurance LawHealthcare ReimbursementSOAHALJ Decision
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kevin M. v. South Beach Psychiatric Center

Kevin M. was arrested for stalking Grammy-winning singer Robyn Fenty (Rihanna) after sending her hundreds of delusional letters and frequently appearing near her Manhattan apartment. Found unfit to stand trial, he was civilly committed to South Beach Psychiatric Center (SBPC). During a subsequent hearing, medical experts testified to his severe psychotic disorder, continuous delusions, and assessment as a danger to himself and others. The court denied Kevin M.'s application for release, finding existing Mental Hygiene Law inadequate to protect Ms. Fenty. Exercising its general equity jurisdiction, the court issued a permanent injunction and an order of protection, prohibiting Kevin M. from any contact with Ms. Fenty or her properties, and allowing for immediate arrest if violated, addressing perceived gaps in New York law concerning dangerously mentally ill individuals with specific targets.

StalkingMental IllnessInvoluntary CommitmentOrder of ProtectionPermanent InjunctionPsychotic DisorderPublic SafetyCriminal Procedure LawMental Hygiene LawEquity Jurisdiction
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Regenbogen v. New York State Willard Psychiatric Center

The case involves an appeal regarding a workers' compensation claim for mental injury filed by a former employee of Willard Psychiatric Center, who later worked for the Workers’ Compensation Board. The claim, initially found compensable, faced jurisdictional challenges after a March 1997 amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 20 (2) (a) mandated neutral arbitration for Board employees' claims pending on or after its effective date. The court found that the Workers’ Compensation Board lacked jurisdiction to issue its June 1997 amended decision because the claim was still 'pending' after the amendment's effective date. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decisions and remitted the entire matter for arbitration, emphasizing that the legislative intent was to remove any appearance of partiality in such claims.

Workers' Compensation BoardJurisdictional DisputeRetroactive Application of LawStatutory AmendmentArbitration MandateMental Stress ClaimAppellate ProcedurePending ClaimsBoard Employee ClaimsAdministrative Law
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,377 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