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. NO. 07-09-0348-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2010

Covenant Health System D/B/A Covenant Medical Center v. Dean Foods Company, a Certified Self-Insured

Covenant Health Systems, acting as an intervenor, appealed the trial court's decision to grant a plea to the jurisdiction filed by Dean Foods Company. Dean Foods contended that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Covenant failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not pursuing Medical Dispute Resolution with the Texas Workers Compensation Commission (TWCC) and not appealing a Contested Case Hearing Officer's Decision to the TWCC Appeals Panel. Additionally, Covenant filed an objection and motion to strike or correct the clerk's record, citing omitted requested documents and the inclusion of unrequested documents. The court directed Covenant to request omitted documents via a supplemental record but denied the motion to strike or correct, stating that document inclusion does not imply relevance.

Texas Appellate CourtAppellate ProcedureClerk's RecordPlea to the JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesWorkers' CompensationMotion to StrikeSupplemental RecordSubject Matter JurisdictionMedical Dispute Resolution
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2003

In re the Arbitration between Ayco Co. & Walton

This case involves cross appeals concerning the scope of an arbitration provision between Ayco Company, L.P. and Hambre, Inc. (petitioners) and a former attorney employee (respondent). The dispute arose when the respondent, after being fired, filed a civil complaint in California, prompting the petitioners to seek to compel arbitration in New York regarding alleged violations of a restrictive covenant. The Supreme Court initially ordered limited arbitration, interpreting an amendment to the partnership agreement as excluding restrictive covenant disputes from arbitration. However, the appellate court, applying the Federal Arbitration Act due to interstate commerce, determined that the broad arbitration clause encompassed all disputes, including those related to the restrictive covenant. Consequently, the appellate court modified the lower court's order to grant the petitioners' application to compel arbitration in its entirety in New York.

ArbitrationPartnership AgreementRestrictive CovenantEmployment DisputeFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Interstate CommerceContract InterpretationVenue DisputeAppellate ReviewCompel Arbitration
References
11
Case No. 07-09-0348-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2011

Covenant Health System D/B/A Covenant Medical Center v. Dean Foods Company, a Certified Self-Insured

Covenant Health System appealed the trial court's order dismissing its claims against Dean Foods Company for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Covenant had intervened in an injured employee's suit to recover medical expenses incurred for a work-related injury. Dean Foods had denied full payment, claiming the second knee operation was non-compensable. While administrative panels initially affirmed non-compensability, a jury later found the injury compensable. The appellate court reversed the dismissal, holding that Covenant, as a subclaimant, was not required to join the employee's appeals or undergo medical dispute resolution for the undisputed portion of medical bills. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Workers' CompensationMedical ExpensesSubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesMedical Dispute ResolutionAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeJudicial ReviewSubclaimantCompensability
References
103
Case No. 15-25-00201-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2025

WCH Master Community, Inc. v. Thomas Wolf and Eileen Wolf

This case involves an appeal by WCH Master Community, Inc. (Appellant/Plaintiff) challenging a trial court's order concerning restrictive covenants. The Association denied the Wolfs' (Appellees/Defendants) application to install a 25-foot pole for a security camera, citing violations of aesthetic harmony and design guidelines. The trial court denied the Association's summary judgment motion and partially granted the Wolfs' motion, interpreting the Texas Property Code as broadly prohibiting restrictions on security measures. The Association argues this interpretation is overly expansive, potentially undermining all restrictive covenants, and that their denial was specifically for the pole's placement, not the security camera itself.

Restrictive CovenantsHomeowners AssociationSecurity MeasuresTexas Property CodeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewArchitectural ControlTexas LawProperty RightsFencing
References
13
Case No. 10-21-00323-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2023

Dorothy Gantenbein & Charles Fricke v. Tonya Lacy, Bob Burnett, Roxanne Burnett, Will Fair, Carolyn Fair, Kurt Harwell, & Jennifer Harwell

The Homeowners appealed the trial court's judgment granting declaratory and injunctive relief in favor of the Neighbors. The Neighbors had sued to declare that the Homeowners' plan to rent rooms in their newly purchased residence would violate restrictive covenants and sought a permanent injunction. The Homeowners counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment that the covenants allowed them to rent rooms. The trial court granted the relief requested by the Neighbors. On appeal, the court affirmed, finding the dispute was ripe for adjudication, the restrictive covenants were unambiguous and prohibited the Homeowners' intended rental activities, and the injunctive relief granted was appropriate. The court also upheld the award of attorneys' fees to the Neighbors as the prevailing party.

Restrictive CovenantsProperty UseDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefSingle-Family DwellingResidential PurposesShort-Term RentalBoarding HouseAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
30
Case No. E2014-01399-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2015

Connie Raby v. Covenant Health

Connie Raby sued Covenant Health, Rentenbach Engineering Company, and TEG Architects, LLC, alleging negligence due to excessive radiation exposure from unshielded radiology facilities at Methodist Hospital. Defendants sought summary judgment based on the construction statute of repose, arguing the project was substantially complete by March 23, 2006, and the statute had expired. The Trial Court granted summary judgment, a decision which Connie Raby appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that the facilities were substantially complete as intended, regardless of defects, and the statute of repose applied, thereby defeating Raby's claims. The appellate court also found no abuse of discretion in denying Raby's motion to add Methodist Medical Center as a party or in limiting discovery.

Construction NegligenceStatute of ReposeSummary JudgmentSubstantial CompletionRadiation ExposureAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionMedical Facilities ConstructionTort LawDesign Defect
References
35
Case No. E2014-01409-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2015

Keith Gillis v. Covenant Health

Plaintiff Keith Gillis sued Covenant Health, Rentenbach Engineering Company, and TEG Architects, LLC, alleging construction negligence and damages from excessive radiation exposure due to omitted lead shielding in a hospital's radiology facilities. The Trial Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing the construction statute of repose and finding the project substantially complete by March 2006. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the defect prevented substantial completion and sought to add Methodist Medical Center as a party. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that substantial completion occurred when the facility could be used for its intended purpose, despite defects, and that the statute of repose barred the claims. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to amend or limiting discovery.

construction negligencestatute of reposesummary judgmentradiation exposurelead shieldingsubstantial completionappellate reviewabuse of discretionpleading requirementsfraud
References
33
Case No. E2014-01405-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2015

Michael Phillips v. Covenant Health

Plaintiff Michael Phillips sued Covenant Health, Rentenbach Engineering Company, and TEG Architects, LLC, alleging construction negligence and excessive radiation exposure due to missing lead shielding in radiology facilities. Defendants moved for summary judgment, citing the statute of repose, arguing the project was substantially completed in March 2006. The Trial Court granted summary judgment, finding the statute of repose applied and no exceptions for fraud were adequately pleaded, a decision the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court held that substantial completion occurs when a project can be used for its intended purpose, even with defects, thus the statute of repose had expired before the lawsuit was filed in January 2014. Additionally, the Trial Court's denial of Plaintiff's motion to amend and its limitation of discovery were upheld, as they did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Construction negligenceStatute of reposeSubstantial completionRadiation exposureSummary judgmentAppellate reviewAbuse of discretionDiscovery limitationsFraudulent concealmentDefective construction
References
29
Case No. E2014-01408-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2015

Mary Ridenour v. Covenant Health

This appeal concerns a construction negligence case where Mary Ridenour and Jacob Ross Ridenour (Plaintiffs) sued Covenant Health, Rentenbach Engineering Company, and TEG Architects, LLC (Defendants) for damages from excessive radiation exposure. Plaintiffs alleged that the absence of lead shielding in radiology facilities at Methodist Hospital caused the exposure. The Circuit Court for Anderson County granted summary judgment to the Defendants, citing the construction statute of repose, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202, as a complete defense. The Trial Court found that the project was substantially complete by March 23, 2006, and the lawsuit, filed in January 2014, was outside the four-year statute of repose. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's decision, holding that substantial completion is met when a project can be used for its intended purpose, regardless of defects, and that no exceptions to the statute of repose (such as fraud or wrongful concealment) were adequately pleaded. The Court also affirmed the denial of Plaintiffs' motion to amend to add Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge (MMC) as a party and the limitation of discovery.

Construction NegligenceStatute of ReposeSummary JudgmentSubstantial CompletionAppellate ReviewRadiation ExposureMedical Facility LiabilityFraudulent ConcealmentMotion to AmendDiscovery Abuse
References
30
Case No. E2014-01410-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2015

Micah Noelle Lewellen v. Covenant Health

This appeal arises from a construction negligence case where Plaintiffs, Micah Noelle Lewellen and Cale Ryan Lewellen, sued Covenant Health, Rentenbach Engineering Company, and TEG Architects, LLC. Plaintiffs alleged damages from excessive radiation exposure due to a lack of shielding in Methodist Hospital's radiology facilities. The Trial Court granted summary judgment to Defendants, asserting the construction statute of repose. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding that the radiology facilities were substantially complete by March 2006, despite the defect, and thus the statute of repose had expired, defeating Plaintiffs' claims. The appellate court also upheld the denial of Plaintiffs' motion to amend to add Methodist Medical Center as a party and the limitation of discovery.

Construction NegligenceStatute of ReposeSummary JudgmentRadiation ExposureSubstantial CompletionAppellate ReviewTrial Court AffirmationFraudulent ConcealmentMotion to AmendDiscovery Limitation
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 894 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