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. 03-14-00726-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2014

Texas San Marcos Treatment Center, L.P. D/B/A San Marcos Treatment Center v. Veronica Payton

Texas San Marcos Treatment Center appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss Veronica Payton's health care liability claim. Payton alleged negligence after being assaulted by a patient at the treatment center. The appellant argues that the expert report provided by Dr. William H. Reid is deficient, lacking factual support and specificity concerning the standard of care, its breach, and causation, as required by Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. The appellant asserts the trial court abused its discretion by finding the report adequate and requests dismissal of the claims.

Medical MalpracticeExpert ReportMotion to DismissAbuse of DiscretionStandard of CareBreach of DutyCausationHealth Care Liability ClaimPsychiatric FacilityEmployee Assault
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. ADJ2593762 (SAC 0363364)
Regular
Jul 13, 2012

RICHARD HODGE vs. DEPENDABLE HIGHWAY EXPRESS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's decision to provide psychiatric treatment. Even if the need for psychiatric treatment stems from a potentially non-compensable psychiatric injury, the employer remains liable if the treatment is reasonably required to cure or relieve the effects of a compensable industrial injury. In this case, the applicant's psychiatric treatment was deemed necessary to address cognitive impairment caused by a compensable traumatic brain injury. Therefore, the employer is liable for this treatment under established case law, regardless of the nuances of the six-month employment rule.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)sudden and extraordinary exceptionsix-month employment rulemedical treatmentLabor Code section 4600reasonably requiredcure or relievenon-compensable injurypsychiatric treatmenttraumatic brain injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ1236919
Regular
Mar 26, 2009

MIKE H. FORREST vs. APPLE CONTRACTING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a lien claimant seeking reimbursement for psychiatric treatment provided to an applicant whose employment duration precluded a valid industrial psychiatric injury claim. The applicant's orthopedic injury was accepted, and treatment for his psyche was initially authorized by the defendant. However, the Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration. The denial was based on the applicant not meeting the six-month employment requirement for psychiatric claims under Labor Code section 3208.3(d). Furthermore, the psychiatric treatment was not deemed a necessary pre-condition to treating the industrial orthopedic injury, and the lien claimant failed to establish the elements of estoppel against the defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJDisallowed LienPsychiatric TreatmentIndustrial InjuryLabor Code Section 3208.3(d)Six Month Employment Requirement
References
4
Case No. ADJ1936437 (RIV 0070095) ADJ211616 (RIV 0073390)
Regular
Jun 20, 2011

ROSE MARIE RODRIGUEZ vs. HI-DESERT MEMORIAL, ALPHA FUND

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration of a supplemental award. The WCAB affirmed the finding that lien claimants were entitled to reimbursement for psychiatric treatment provided to the applicant. This treatment was deemed a compensable consequence of the applicant's industrial left thumb injury, with medical experts opining the psychiatric condition was predominantly caused by the orthopedic disability. The WCAB found that the industrial physical injury was the predominant cause of the applicant's psychiatric condition, making the treatment necessary.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRose Marie RodriguezHi-Desert MemorialAlpha Fundlicensed vocational nurseorthopedic injurypsyche injurycompensable consequenceLabor Code section 3208.3(b)(1)psychiatric treatment
References
6
Case No. E2014-00302-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2015

American Heritage Apartments, Inc. v. The Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority, Hamilton County, Tennessee

The plaintiff, American Heritage Apartments, Inc., challenged a monthly flat charge imposed by the Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority (County WWTA) for sewer lateral repairs. The trial court granted summary judgment to the County WWTA, finding no private right of action under the Utility District Law of 1937 (UDL). On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, concluding the UDL was inapplicable as the County WWTA was formed under the Tennessee Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority Act (WWTA Act). The appellate court held that the WWTA Act implicitly provides a private right of action for ultra vires and contract claims. The court also affirmed the trial court's alternative ruling that class action certification for affected customers was appropriate.

Water UtilityWastewater TreatmentFlat Rate ChargeClass Action CertificationSummary Judgment ReversalPrivate Right of ActionUltra Vires ClaimGovernmental ImmunityUtility District LawWater and Wastewater Treatment Authority Act
References
48
Case No. ADJ1635668 (OXN 0148383)
Regular
May 08, 2014

MARTHA MORALES vs. RICK BORQUEZ, D.D.S., STATE FARM INSURANCE

This case involves a lien claimant seeking payment for psychiatric treatment and medication provided to the applicant. The initial WCJ disallowed the lien, finding the psychiatric treatment was not for a compensable consequence of the industrial injury and that the lien claimant failed to meet its burden of proof. The Appeals Board rescinded this decision, holding that the applicant's psychiatric condition was a compensable consequence of the industrial injury, as evidenced by the Compromise and Release, a QME's report, and the employer's prior payments for such treatment. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine the amount due to the lien claimant.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantOrchid Multispecialty Medical GroupPsychiatric TreatmentCompensable ConsequenceUtilization ReviewQualified Medical EvaluatorBurden of ProofPreponderance of the EvidenceCompromise and Release
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peeples v. Home Indemnity Co.

Billy R. Peeples, an injured worker, appealed a trial court's decision regarding psychiatric treatment expenses for a knee injury sustained while employed by Friedrich Refrigeration. Peeples, the claimant, sought compensation from Home Indemnity Company, the carrier. The trial jury awarded workers' compensation but denied payment for psychiatric treatment, finding it was not reasonably required as a result of the leg injury. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in excluding testimony from Dr. George Schlagenhauf, the treating psychiatrist, concerning the diagnosis and necessity of the treatment. Furthermore, the jury's finding against the necessity of psychiatric care was deemed against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, as Dr. Schlagenhauf's testimony on necessity was uncontradicted. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationPsychiatric TreatmentMedical ExpensesAdmissibility of EvidenceSufficiency of EvidenceKnee InjuryDepressionMedical NecessityAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
7
Case No. 08-11-00264-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2014

Maria G. Thompson/Luis Marioni, D.C. v. Jaime Stolar, M.D., Alivio Medical Center, Alivio Treatment Centers, P.A. and Luis Marioni, D.C./Maria G. Thompson

This multi-party appeal originated from a medical and chiropractic malpractice lawsuit filed by Maria G. Thompson against Dr. Jaime Stolar, Dr. Luis Marioni, and Alivio Medical Center and Alivio Treatment Centers, P.A. Thompson alleged negligence resulting in severe knee injuries, including infection and fusions, following injections and treatment. A jury found Dr. Stolar and Dr. Marioni negligent, awarding damages. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment against Dr. Marioni due to insufficient evidence of causation but affirmed the judgment against Dr. Stolar. The court also upheld the denial of Thompson's claims regarding damages and apparent agency against Alivio.

Medical MalpracticeChiropractic MalpracticeKnee InjuryKnee InfectionSpontaneous FusionSurgical FusionNegligenceCausationDamages AssessmentApparent Agency
References
48
Case No. ADJ1167311 (LBO 0303498) ADJ749429 (LBO 0296277)
Regular
Apr 29, 2011

RAMON ZIEBA vs. BAILLY SHOWCASE, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied lien claimant Dr. Halote's petition for reconsideration. Dr. Halote sought reimbursement for psychiatric treatment, arguing it was separate from a psychiatric injury claim. However, the only issue presented at trial was whether the applicant sustained a psychiatric injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment. The Board found that the issue of the reasonableness of psychiatric treatment, for admitted orthopedic injuries, was not raised at trial and was therefore waived. Thus, the Board denied reconsideration as Dr. Halote could not raise this new issue for the first time on appeal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardpsychiatric injuryAOE/COElien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Factadministrative law judgeLabor Codecompensabilitypsychiatric treatment
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 4,056 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