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. 01-18-00242-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2019

Nephrology Leaders and Associates and M. Atiq Dada, MD v. American Renal Associates LLC

Nephrology Leaders and Associates and M. Atiq Dada, M.D. (collectively, "Nephrology") appealed a trial court's order that temporarily sealed certain documents from a subpoena issued to American Renal Associates, LLC. Nephrology argued the trial court abused its discretion by setting the motion for a hearing sua sponte and that evidence was insufficient to support the order. American Renal countered that Nephrology lacked standing to appeal. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas agreed, concluding that Nephrology had not demonstrated a redressable injury, which is a constitutional prerequisite for standing in Texas. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, affirming that statutory provisions cannot enlarge constitutional jurisdiction.

Appellate ProcedureSubject Matter JurisdictionStandingSealing OrderTemporary SealingDiscovery SubpoenaAbuse of DiscretionTrial Court OrderConstitutional StandingJudicial Review
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 1980

Wernham v. Moore

The plaintiff, an unnamed former "permanent employee" of the Episcopal Mission Society (Society), was terminated in 1978 for allegedly leaving a group home unattended. The plaintiff claims the dismissal was without just cause, arguing he was on authorized leave, and that the Society failed to follow its own personnel manual procedures requiring written warnings and meetings for non-major violations. A key contention is that the Society's actions constitute "State action" due to its compliance with Department of Social Services regulations (18 NYCRR 441.4), which would subject it to due process requirements. The court found that while the Society is regulated, a factual question remains regarding a "significant nexus" for State action, which cannot be resolved solely on a motion to dismiss. The plaintiff also suggested the manuals represented a bilateral agreement, but the complaint lacked specificity on this point. Ultimately, the Supreme Court's order affirming the motion to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency was affirmed.

Employment TerminationState Action DoctrineDue ProcessPersonnel ManualsDismissal ProceduresDepartment of Social Services RegulationsRegulatory ComplianceMotion to DismissLegal SufficiencyAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 1975

McIntyre v. Bakers For A Democratic Union

This case involves an appeal from an order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss a libel complaint. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the motion to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency or for summary judgment, and also denied dismissal against defendant Caprio for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court modified the order, dismissing the action against Caprio due to lack of jurisdiction, as he was served in New Jersey and had no New York ties. The court otherwise affirmed the denial of dismissal, finding that the subject matter of the allegedly false and indiscriminately distributed pamphlets, viewed in context of opposing affidavits, was sufficient to raise a triable issue as to actual malice. Justice Murphy dissented in part, arguing for dismissal against all appellants, asserting the leaflet targeted union officers, not the union, and that the alleged defamation arose from an intraunion dispute protected by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. He further contended that plaintiffs failed to show actual malice with convincing clarity, as required by New York Times Co. v Sullivan.

LibelDefamationJurisdictionSummary JudgmentLabor LawUnion DisputeActual MaliceFirst AmendmentCPLRUS Code
References
5
Case No. 03-16-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2016

Steve F. Montoya, Jr., M.D., West Texas Renal Care and West Texas Nephrology v. San Angelo Community Medical Center and Kirk Brewer, M.D.

Appellants, Steve F. Montoya, Jr., M.D., and his entities, appealed the dismissal of their claims against Kirk Brewer, M.D. and the summary judgment granted to San Angelo Community Medical Center (SACMC). Dr. Montoya alleged that Dr. Brewer, as Chief of Staff and head of a hospitalist group, conspired with SACMC to engage in anticompetitive actions, including a "whisper campaign" and manipulating patient referrals from the emergency room to favor hospital-affiliated physicians, thereby harming Dr. Montoya's nephrology practice. The lower court dismissed claims against Dr. Brewer under the Texas Citizens Participation Act and Rule 91a, subsequently granting summary judgment to SACMC. Appellants argue these dismissals were erroneous, asserting their claims are valid under Texas antitrust laws, they presented clear and specific evidence, SACMC has direct liability, and the court failed to consider their updated pleadings. Dr. Montoya seeks to reverse the dismissals, citing significant lost revenue estimated between $3,000,000 and $6,500,000 from lost long-term kidney dialysis patients.

AntitrustBusiness DisparagementDefamationTortious InterferenceMonopolizationGroup BoycottEMTALAPatient ReferralsHospitalist ServicesPhysician Privileges
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S & D Trading Academy, LLC v. Aafis, Inc.

Plaintiffs S & D Trading Academy, LLC, and S & D Global Trading, Inc. (collectively, "S & D") brought an action against AAFIS, Inc., Helen Shih, and Marty Shih for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. Defendant AAFIS filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, improper venue, and *forum non conveniens*, arguing that the case should be heard in China. The court found that AAFIS had sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to establish specific jurisdiction for both claims, as the contract was negotiated, formed, and partially performed in Texas, and the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets began in Texas. The court also concluded that exercising jurisdiction in Texas would align with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, considering Texas's interest in the dispute and the convenience for the plaintiffs. Therefore, the court denied all of AAFIS's motions to dismiss.

Personal JurisdictionForum Non ConveniensBreach of ContractTrade Secrets MisappropriationMotions to DismissMinimum ContactsDue ProcessSpecific JurisdictionService of ProcessImproper Venue
References
37
Case No. 14-07-00925-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2009

Latoya Basey v. Davita Inc., D/B/A Total Renal Care, Nelda Boatwright and Fresenius Medical Care Holding Inc., D/B/A Fresenius Medical Care North America D/B/A Northwest Houston Dialysis, and Biomedical Applications of Texas, Inc.

Latoya Basey appealed a take-nothing summary judgment in a disability discrimination and tort case against her former employer, DaVita, Inc., and potential employer, Fresenius Medical Care Holding, Inc. Basey claimed DaVita fired her after a work-related back injury and that Fresenius refused to hire her due to her injury and prior discrimination charge. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying grounds. The appellate court affirmed, finding Basey failed to provide evidence of disability for her discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims, and lacked evidence of causation for her retaliation claims.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationEmployment LawCausal LinkTexas Court of AppealsADAFailure to AccommodateEmployment Termination
References
11
Case No. ADJ8218969
Regular
Feb 05, 2015

JOSE CARRILLO (Deceased) ELVIRA CARRILLO (Widow) vs. ESTERLINE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, ARCH INSURANCE, Administered by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a taken nothing order concerning the death claim of Jose Carrillo, who died of renal cell carcinoma. The initial decision found the widow failed to prove her husband's cancer was industrially caused by toxic exposure during his employment. The Board found the Qualified Medical Evaluator's opinion equivocal and the record insufficient to determine the extent of the decedent's exposure to carcinogens. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial judge for further development of the record regarding chemical exposure and a new determination of industrial causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardElvira CarrilloJose CarrilloEsterline Technologies CorporationArch InsuranceESISADJ8218969Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Ordertaken nothing order
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00070 [190 AD3d 1067]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2021

Matter of Sudnik v. Pinnacle Envtl. Corp.

Wieslaw Sudnik appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied his claim for benefits, asserting kidney cancer was caused by exposure to toxins near the World Trade Center site after 9/11. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found a causal link, but the Board reversed, citing insufficient proof. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding that the claimant's treating physician and an independent examiner failed to adequately establish a causal relationship between his employment near the World Trade Center and his renal cell carcinoma, especially considering his history of smoking and asbestos exposure. The court emphasized that the claimant did not meet his burden of proof with competent medical evidence, and therefore the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationCausationMedical EvidenceBurden of ProofRenal Cell CarcinomaAsbestos ExposureWorld Trade Center ExposureZadroga LawAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Home Insurance Co. v. Davis

Nathaniel Ray Davis, an employee of D & W Packing Company, claimed total and permanent disability due to chronic bronchitis as an occupational disease, allegedly caused by exposure to extreme hot and cold temperatures at work. The jury found in his favor, but the carrier appealed, arguing insufficient evidence. Medical testimony conflicted on whether the bronchitis was caused by work conditions or merely aggravated, and whether it was an ordinary disease of life or due to smoking. The court found the evidence insufficient to support the jury's finding that Mr. Davis contracted an occupational disease and also found insufficient evidence regarding timely notice of injury to the employer. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

Occupational DiseaseChronic BronchitisMedical CausationFactual Insufficiency of EvidenceNotice of InjuryAggravation vs. CausationSmoking EtiologyWorkplace ConditionsJury Finding ReversalRemand for New Trial
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. McGinnis

This case involves the defendant, Felicia McGinnis, who moved to dismiss a charge of loitering for the purpose of engaging in prostitution (Penal Law § 240.37 [2]) due to facial insufficiency of the accusatory instrument. The court examined the complaint and supporting deposition, noting the reliance on a preprinted, check-off form that vaguely alleged the defendant loitered, spoke to three passersby for 20 minutes, and was previously arrested for prostitution-related offenses in an area frequented by prostitutes. The court found the allegations lacked specific, overt acts demonstrating a clear intent to solicit prostitution. It concluded that the general description of her clothing, ambiguous statement, and officer's prior experience were insufficient to establish reasonable cause. The motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument for facial insufficiency was therefore granted.

LoiteringProstitutionFacial InsufficiencyAccusatory InstrumentCriminal Procedure LawPenal LawSufficiency of EvidenceSupporting DepositionCheck-off FormsEvidentiary Character
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 3,897 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