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. 01-14-00767-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Shirley Lenoir, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shana Lenoir and Christopher McKnight , Individually and as Next Friend of Nayla McKnight v. U.T. Physicians

This is a health care liability appeal where Shirley Lenoir and Christopher McKnight, individually and as representatives of the Estate of Shana Lenoir and Nayla McKnight, challenge the trial court's decision to grant U.T. Physicians' plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. The appellants allege that U.T. Physicians' negligence in treating Shana Lenoir’s twin pregnancy, specifically the administration of a medically unnecessary and contraindicated progesterone injection by Nurse Matthews, proximately caused her death. U.T. Physicians claimed sovereign immunity as a governmental unit. Appellants argue that U.T. Physicians is a private non-profit corporation and an independent contractor, not entitled to sovereign immunity, and that a waiver of immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act was sufficiently pled due to the use of tangible physical property.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental UnitIndependent ContractorTexas Tort Claims ActHealth Care LiabilityMedical MalpracticeNegligenceProgesterone InjectionTwin PregnancyWrongful Death
References
16
Case No. 07-02-0011-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2003

Cresthaven Nursing Residence v. Freeman

This case involves an appeal in a health care liability claim where the appellees, daughters of Wanda Granger, sued Cresthaven Nursing Residence, Cantex Healthcare Centers, and its general partners for negligence that allegedly resulted in Granger's injury and death. A jury awarded $9 million, which was subject to a statutory damage cap. The appellate court initially found prejudgment interest was not subject to the cap and suggested remittiturs for excessive damages. However, on rehearing, the court modified its decision, aligning with a new Supreme Court ruling that prejudgment interest is included in the damage cap, and affirmed the judgment with an adjusted cap of $1,413,008.13. Key issues included the application of the damage cap, prejudgment interest calculation, spoliation instruction, and expert witness qualification.

Health Care LiabilityMedical MalpracticeNursing Home NegligenceWrongful DeathSurvival ActionDamage CapPrejudgment InterestSpoliation of EvidenceExpert Witness QualificationExcessive Damages
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Szucs v. Committee of Interns and Residents

Paul Szucs, a physician at Bronx Municipal Hospital Center (BMHC), sued the Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR), a labor union, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a conspiracy with BMHC to deny his collective bargaining rights and force his resignation. He also brought several state law claims. Szucs claimed CIR representatives conspired with BMHC to frustrate his grievance and arbitration attempts after he was fired from his residency program for alleged attendance issues. The court granted CIR's motion for summary judgment on the § 1983 claim, finding no evidence of a conspiracy between CIR and BMHC, and no evidence that CIR acted under color of state law or had a policy to conspire. The court dismissed the federal claim and remanded the remaining New York State common law claims for breach of contract, breach of duty of fair representation, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and concerted action to state court. The court reserved decision on motions for attorneys' fees and costs, referring them to a Magistrate Judge.

Civil RightsSection 1983Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementDue ProcessConspiracySummary JudgmentState Law ClaimsRemandAttorneys' Fees
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Neil v. Roman Catholic Diocese

A student worker at St. Ephrem’s Church (the plaintiff) experienced sexual harassment from a visiting priest. After a particularly egregious incident, she informed other parish priests who promptly referred her to law enforcement. The plaintiff subsequently sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Ephrem’s Church for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision, arguing they should have known of the priest's propensity. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the Diocese defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims, finding they lacked actual or constructive knowledge. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants met their burden in demonstrating no prior knowledge of the visiting priest's conduct and acted diligently once informed.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityConstructive KnowledgeDiscriminationNew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Health Acquisition Corp. v. Program Risk Management Inc.

The plaintiffs, home health care companies (Health Acquisition Corp., Bestcare, Inc., and Aides at Home, Inc.), sued various defendants, including accounting firm DeChants, Fuglein & Johnson, LLP (DFJ) and actuarial firm SGRisk, LLC, for professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The suit arose after the self-insurance trust they were members of became insolvent, leading to significant assessments from the Workers' Compensation Board. Plaintiffs alleged defendants concealed the trust's true financial state and their liability risks. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against DFJ and SGRisk. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the complaint adequately alleged "near-privity" and negligence against both firms, even clarifying that actuaries could be held liable for common-law negligence despite not being licensed professionals for malpractice claims. A partial appeal concerning leave to amend the complaint was dismissed.

professional negligencenegligent misrepresentationCPLR 3211 (a)motion to dismissgroup self-insurance trustWorkers' Compensation Law § 50joint and several liabilityactuariesaccountantsnear-privity
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez v. Carreras

This case addresses the scope of a physician's duty when examining a non-patient for a third party. Simon Ramirez, who filed a worker's compensation claim, sued Dr. Carreras for common law negligence, alleging injury during an impairment rating exam conducted for the insurance carrier. The court held that a physician examining a non-patient owes a duty not to injure the examinee, but not the higher standard of care owed in a physician-patient relationship. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing Ramirez's medical negligence claim due to the absence of a physician-patient relationship. However, it reversed the summary judgment on the common law negligence claim, finding that Ramirez presented sufficient evidence that Dr. Carreras breached his duty not to injure and that this breach proximately caused Ramirez's injuries. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Physician-patient relationshipDuty not to injureCommon law negligenceMedical negligenceSummary judgmentWorker's compensationImpairment ratingProximate causeExpert testimonyMedical Liability Insurance Improvement Act
References
29
Case No. 03-11-00602-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2012

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Anonymous Adult Texas Resident

The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) appealed a trial court's judgment that reversed its determination requiring an anonymous Texas resident to register as a sex offender under the Texas Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The central legal question involved whether a 1993 Massachusetts conviction for "indecent assault and battery" was "substantially similar" to a reportable Texas sex offense. DPS contended the trial court erred by excluding a police report detailing the victim's allegations and in its "substantial similarity" finding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the elements of the Massachusetts statute were not substantially similar to those of Texas sexual assault, indecency with a child, or related attempted offenses. Therefore, the anonymous resident was not required to register as a sex offender in Texas under SORA, rendering the evidentiary exclusion issue moot.

Sex Offender RegistrationSORASubstantial Similarity TestMassachusetts LawTexas LawCriminal ProcedureSexual AssaultIndecent Assault and BatteryAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tesillo v. Emergency Physician Associates, Inc.

Manuel Tesillo sued Emergency Physician Associates, Inc. (EPA) for medical malpractice, alleging vicarious liability for the negligence of Dr. William C. Shepherd, an emergency physician at Schuyler Hospital. EPA moved for summary judgment, arguing Dr. Shepherd was an independent contractor. The court found material issues of fact regarding the extent of EPA's control over Dr. Shepherd and its managerial obligations to the Emergency Department, which could establish an employer-employee relationship despite contractual terms. Consequently, the court denied EPA's motion for summary judgment, indicating that the determination of Dr. Shepherd's employment status requires further discovery and possibly a trial.

Medical MalpracticeVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorAgency by EstoppelSummary JudgmentPhysician NegligenceEmergency DepartmentControl TestMaterial Issues of Fact
References
18
Case No. 23-0697
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

State of Texas Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas Texas Medical Board Texas Health and Human Services Commission And Ken Paxton, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Lazaro Loe, Individually and as Next Friend of Luna Loe, a Minor Mary Moe and Matthew Moe, Individually and as Next Friends of Maeve Moe, a Minor Nora Noe, Individually and as Next Friend of Nathan Noe, a Minor Sarah Soe and Steven Soe, Individually and as Next Friends of Samantha Soe, a Minor Gina Goe, Individually and as Next Friend of Grayson Goe, a Minor Pflag, Inc. Richard Ogden Roberts III, M.D. David L. Paul, M.D. Patrick W. O'malley, M.D. And American Association of Physicians for Human

The Supreme Court of Texas reversed and vacated a temporary injunction against Senate Bill 14, which prohibits certain medical treatments for minors related to gender transition. Parents of children with gender dysphoria, along with physicians and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, had challenged the law as unconstitutional, alleging infringements on parental rights, occupational freedom for physicians, and discrimination based on sex and transgender status. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish a probable right to relief, asserting that parental rights are not absolute and the Legislature has constitutional authority to regulate medicine, especially regarding novel treatments for new conditions. The Court also found no unconstitutional discrimination, stating the law treats males and females equally in its prohibitions and that "transgender status" is not a protected class under the Texas Constitution.

Parental RightsMedical RegulationGender DysphoriaConstitutional LawDue Course of LawEqual ProtectionTransgender RightsMinors' Medical TreatmentLegislative AuthorityTexas Supreme Court
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mermelstein v. City of New York

Dr. Hindi T. Mermelstein, a physician, initiated a personal injury action against the City of New York and New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) following an assault by a patient at Bellevue Hospital, alleging negligence. The defendants contended that Mermelstein's exclusive remedy was Workers' Compensation, and the City argued it was not a proper party, while HHC claimed lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Motion Court dismissed the complaint against both defendants. On appeal, the court found a triable issue of fact regarding Mermelstein's actual employer at the time of the incident, given the complex affiliation contract between HHC and New York University Medical Center (NYU), where Mermelstein was a resident physician. Consequently, the appellate court modified the lower court's order, denying HHC's motion to dismiss and reinstating the complaint against HHC.

Personal InjuryNegligenceEmployer LiabilityWorkers' CompensationDual EmploymentScope of EmploymentAssaultHospital NegligenceAppellate ReviewMotion to Dismiss
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 7,845 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