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. 07-09-00163-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2010

Potter County, Texas as Plan Administrator for the Health Benefits Plan for the Employees of Potter County, Texas v. Ronda Tuckness and Michael Tuckness

Potter County, acting as the plan administrator for its employee health benefits plan, appealed an order that denied its plea to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit was filed by Ronda and Michael Tuckness, seeking health care benefits after the County denied Michael Tuckness's claim for back surgery costs due to an occupational injury exclusion. The County contended it was immune from suit. The appellate court found that the County's governmental immunity had not been waived by the requests for declaratory relief, the terms of the health plan contract, or the County's conduct. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the Tucknesses' case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Governmental ImmunityImmunity WaiverDeclaratory JudgmentContract LawHealth BenefitsPlan AdministratorOccupational Sickness/InjuryJurisdictionPlea to JurisdictionInterlocutory Appeal
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Memorial Hermann Health System v. Coastal Drilling Co., LLC Employee Benefit Trust

Plaintiff Memorial Hermann Health System (MHHS) sued Coastal Drilling for breach of contract and recovery of benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). MHHS claimed Coastal Drilling breached a contract to pay for healthcare services at PPOplus Contracted Rates. The Court determined that MHHS's breach of contract claim was not preempted by ERISA but could not be enforced because MHHS was a non-party to the Network Access Agreement and Coastal Drilling, also a non-party, had no direct obligation under it. Regarding the ERISA claim, the Court found that Coastal Drilling, as the plan administrator, had discretionary authority to determine benefits based on the Plan's Applicable Plan Limits (APL). The Court found substantial evidence supporting Coastal Drilling's benefits determination and no evidence of bias affecting the decision, despite a structural conflict of interest. Consequently, the Court granted Coastal Drilling's motion for summary judgment and dismissed MHHS's claims with prejudice.

ERISASummary JudgmentBreach of ContractPlan AdministratorBenefits DenialHealthcare ProviderThird-Party BeneficiaryERISA PreemptionTexas LawFiduciary Duty
References
48
Case No. 15-24-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2024

Cecile Erwin Young, in Her Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc.; And Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc. v. Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction and the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction issued by the 353rd Judicial District of Travis County. The appellants, including Cecile Erwin Young (Executive Commissioner of HHSC), Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc., and Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc., are challenging the lower court's decision. The appellees (Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company) had sought to enjoin the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) from proceeding with STAR & CHIP and STAR Kids managed care procurements. The core legal arguments revolve around whether HHSC's procurement processes violated Texas law, thereby rendering the intended contract awards unlawful ultra vires acts, and whether the appellees' claims are barred by sovereign immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The appellants contend that the district court abused its discretion by granting the injunction and denying the plea.

Appellate CourtTemporary InjunctionPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsProcurement DisputeManaged Care ContractsMedicaidCHIPTexas Health and Human Services Commission
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Franzese v. United Health Care/Oxford

Plaintiffs Robert and Elizabeth Franzese, parents and legal guardians of disabled adult Robert Franzese Jr. ("Bobby"), sued United Health Care/Oxford under ERISA to recover medical benefits. Bobby, suffering from chronic lung disease, requires 24/7 in-home nursing care. Oxford denied preauthorization for private duty nursing, citing it as an exclusion, and denied home health care services. The court granted Oxford's summary judgment motion regarding private duty nursing and Xopenex preauthorization, finding private duty nursing not covered. However, the court denied Oxford's motion regarding home health care services, deeming Oxford's denial arbitrary and capricious due to lack of substantial evidence. The case is remanded to Oxford for reconsideration of home health care benefits.

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Medical BenefitsHealth Insurance DenialSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious StandardHome Health CarePrivate Duty NursingPreauthorizationMedical NecessityChronic Lung Disease
References
37
Case No. 2015-07-0086
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2015

Spain, Amanda v. Health South Cane Creek Rehab Hospital

Amanda Spain, the employee, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing with the Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims, seeking temporary disability benefits following a work-related injury diagnosed as bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. She underwent two surgeries, on April 8, 2015, and May 27, 2015, and was placed on light-duty restrictions by her authorized treating physician, Dr. Ragsdale. Although Ms. Spain was terminated for cause by her employer, Health South Cane Creek Rehab Hospital, the Court found that her termination did not preclude her entitlement to temporary partial disability benefits. The employer conceded that, but for the termination, Ms. Spain would have been entitled to the benefits for the relevant period. Consequently, the Court granted the request, ordering Health South or its insurance carrier, Arch Insurance Company, to pay Ms. Spain $413.38 per week in temporary disability benefits, retroactive to May 27, 2015, and continuing until she reaches maximum medical improvement or returns to work without restrictions.

Workers' CompensationTemporary DisabilityCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSurgical ProcedureLight-Duty RestrictionsEmployment TerminationDisability BenefitsTennessee LawExpedited HearingMedical Examiner
References
6
Case No. 2015-03-0233
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2016

Roark, Kristen v. Team Health

Kristin Roark, an audit clerk for Team Health, sustained a right eye injury on March 17, 2015. Team Health initially provided workers' compensation benefits but later terminated temporary total disability benefits on April 7, 2015, citing a return-to-work note. Ms. Roark disputed this termination, stating she never received certain return-to-work information. The court found that Ms. Roark established she was disabled from working due to a compensable injury and that a causal connection existed between the injury and her inability to work. Consequently, the Court granted her request for additional temporary total disability benefits.

Temporary Total Disability BenefitsExpedited HearingEye InjuryMedical Treatment DisputeReturn to Work StatusCausation of InjuryBenefit TerminationPhysician AuthorizationTennessee Workers' Compensation LawWorkers' Compensation Judge Decision
References
4
Case No. 2016-08-0124
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2016

Parker, Janice v. Regional Health

This Expedited Hearing Order addresses Janice Parker's claim for medical and temporary disability benefits due to a mental injury. Ms. Parker, an orthopedic technician at Regional One Health, experienced a traumatic event where an inmate patient lunged at an officer, who then drew her weapon, making Ms. Parker feel trapped and fear for her life. The employer denied the claim, arguing the event was not unexpected for the workplace. However, the Workers' Compensation Judge found that Ms. Parker presented sufficient evidence to establish a likely compensable mental injury caused by a sudden and unexpected mental stimulus, which also aggravated her pre-existing anxiety. Consequently, the court ordered Regional One Health to provide medical benefits for psychiatric treatment and temporary total disability benefits commencing from the date of the incident.

Workplace ViolenceMental InjuryPTSDAnxiety DisorderExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityPre-existing ConditionCompensabilityMedical Causation
References
9
Case No. 2017-08-0751; State File No. 15611-2016
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2019

Holdway, Terri v. Lakeside Behavioral Health Systems

This case concerns Terri Holdway, a nurse seeking workers' compensation benefits for a mental injury allegedly stemming from a patient assault in February 2016 at Lakeside Behavioral Health Systems. Ms. Holdway claimed PTSD, depression, and anxiety, but medical records indicated pre-existing mental health issues. The court heard conflicting expert testimonies from Dr. Melvin Goldin, who diagnosed PTSD, and Dr. Joel A. Reisman, who refuted the PTSD diagnosis, citing Ms. Holdway's return to work and lack of avoidance behavior. The court sided with Dr. Reisman, finding that Ms. Holdway did not prove her mental injury arose primarily from her employment. Consequently, the claim for mental injury benefits was denied, though ongoing medical benefits for her facial injury were awarded.

Mental Injury ClaimPTSD DenialWorkers' Compensation BenefitsNurse InjuryPatient AssaultPre-existing ConditionsExpert Medical TestimonyDSM 5 CriteriaCausation DisputeEmployment Stress
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LTV Steel Co. v. Connors (In Re Chateaugay Corp.)

This case is an appeal of two orders issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The first order granted partial summary judgment to the Mining Companies and LTV Steel Corporation, holding they were not legally obligated to pay retiree health benefits. The second order granted the United Mine Workers of America's cross-motion for summary judgment, determining that the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Benefit Plan and Trust was liable to pay these benefits. The Plan & Trust appealed both orders to the District Court, arguing violations of the Retiree Benefits Bankruptcy Protection Act, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denial of due process, and misinterpretation of its obligations under the Wage Agreement's 'no longer in business' clause. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's orders, finding the Act inapplicable, subject matter jurisdiction proper as a core proceeding, sufficient opportunity to litigate, and the Plan & Trust liable due to contractual interpretation and collateral estoppel from prior litigations.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 11 ReorganizationRetiree Health BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementUMWAEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionCore ProceedingCollateral Estoppel
References
13
Case No. No. 77 Civ. 4712 (MP)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1978

National Ben. Fund, Etc. v. Presby. H., Etc.

The National Benefit Fund for Hospital and Health Care Workers and the National Pension Fund for Hospital and Health Care Workers (the Funds) sued Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York, Inc. (Hospital) to recover allegedly owed contributions based on collective bargaining agreements. The Hospital moved to dismiss, asserting the action was barred by a prior arbitration award between the Union (District 1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees) and the Hospital, which concerned the same contributions and was dismissed due to the Union's unreasonable delay. The District Court, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, held that the arbitration award had res judicata effect. The court determined that the Funds were either in privity with the Union or acted as third-party beneficiaries subject to the same defenses as the promisee Union. Consequently, the court granted the Hospital's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Arbitration AwardRes Judicata DoctrineEmployee Benefit FundsCollective Bargaining DisputesSummary Judgment MotionHospital Labor RelationsUnion RepresentationERISA ClaimsPreclusionFederal District Court
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 12,077 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