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. 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. 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. 2016-08-1054
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2017

Terry, Anthony v. Whaley's Towing

Anthony Terry claimed he fractured his right leg and hip after falling on a tow truck owned by Whaley's Towing on July 27, 2016, seeking medical and temporary disability benefits. Whaley's contended Mr. Terry was an independent contractor and questioned the injury's occurrence. The Court found Mr. Terry was an employee, citing factors like Whaley's right to control, right of termination, and provision of tools. The Court also determined that Mr. Terry would likely prevail in proving a compensable injury, ordering Whaley to provide ongoing medical treatment with Dr. Murrell. However, Mr. Terry's request for temporary disability benefits was denied due to insufficient evidence.

Workers' CompensationEmployment StatusIndependent Contractor DisputeMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingFractured HipTow Truck InjuryUninsured EmployerCredibility AssessmentRight of Control
References
6
Case No. Docket Nos.: 2015-04-0010, 2015-04-0065; State File Nos.: 62832-2014, 49410-2015
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2016

Holborn, Shanan v. Walmart

Shanan Holborn, an employee, sought medical benefits for two work-related injuries: a right foot injury from July 4, 2014, and a low back injury from August 12, 2014. The Court consolidated these claims and addressed whether Ms. Holborn was entitled to further medical treatment and reimbursement for unauthorized emergency room visits. The Court determined that Ms. Holborn was entitled to additional medical treatment for her right foot injury with Dr. Drake and continued treatment for her low back injury with Dr. Leonardo Rodriguez-Cruz, finding Dr. Cruz's opinion held a presumption of correctness over an independent medical evaluation. However, her request for reimbursement for unauthorized emergency room visits was denied due to insufficient evidence to establish the necessity or reasonableness of such care. The matter is set for an Initial Hearing/Status Conference on August 5, 2016.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingFoot InjuryLow Back InjuryIndependent Medical EvaluationTreating PhysicianReimbursementUnauthorized TreatmentCausation
References
25
Case No. 02-22-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2023

BioTE Medical, LLC v. John Carrozzella, MD, JCMD Medical Services, Inc., Dan Deneui, and Terri Deneui

This case addresses whether a contractual "residual benefit" clause, requiring a post-termination fee for using a competing treatment method, constitutes a covenant not to compete under Texas law. Appellant BioTE Medical, LLC, licensed a pellet-based bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT) method. Appellee JCMD Medical Services, Inc., a former customer, terminated its agreement and began using a competitor's BHRT without paying the residual-benefit fee. BioTE Medical sued JCMD for breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment to JCMD, finding the clause unenforceable either as a noncompete or a violation of public policy. The appellate court reversed, holding that the residual-benefit clause is not a covenant not to compete as it does not restrict JCMD from competing with BioTE Medical, but rather from using a competitor's product. The court also declined to invalidate the clause on uncodified public policy grounds, deferring to the Legislature's policy determinations.

Contract lawCovenants Not to Compete ActResidual benefit clausePublic policyBioidentical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT)Breach of contractSummary judgmentAppellate reviewTexas lawBusiness and Commerce Code
References
33
Case No. 2016-02-0027
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2016

Gray, Kimberly v. Fresenius Medical Care

Kimberly Gray, an employee, sought an expedited hearing regarding her entitlement to medical treatment and a second opinion for her right elbow injury sustained while working for Fresenius Medical Care. She had been treating with Dr. Michael Bratton, who placed her at maximum medical improvement (MMI) on August 17, 2015, and determined a 1% permanent partial impairment. Ms. Gray requested a second opinion due to continued pain, but Fresenius Medical Care refused, stating there was no statutory basis requiring them to provide it without a physician's referral. The Court found that Ms. Gray was not entitled to the requested relief as she did not present sufficient evidence to likely prevail at a hearing on the merits, and her request for additional medical benefits was denied.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsSecond OpinionMMIPermanent Partial ImpairmentRight Elbow InjuryOrthopedic SurgeonStatutory InterpretationBurden of Proof
References
3
Case No. 13-09-00350-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2010

Gulf Coast Medical Center, LLC, Tony Todd, Crna, Dan Madsen, M.D. and South Texas Medical Clinics, P.A. v. Jacqueline Temple and Marcus Banks, Individually and as Representatives of the Estate of Markasia Banks, a Minor Child

Appellants, Gulf Coast Medical Center, LLC, Tony Todd, CRNA, Dan Madsen, M.D., and South Texas Medical Clinics, P.A., appealed the trial court's denial of their motions to dismiss. The underlying suit was filed by appellees Jacqueline Temple and Marcus Banks, alleging negligence in the care and treatment of their deceased minor child, Markasia Banks. The core issue on appeal was the appellees' failure to timely serve an expert medical report as required by the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Court of Appeals determined that the appellees' claims were 'health care liability claims' and that the expert report was indeed untimely, and that an abatement due to a failure to provide medical authorization did not extend the deadline. The court also affirmed the constitutionality of the expert report requirement. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, granted the appellants' motions to dismiss, and remanded the case for the award of attorney's fees and costs to the appellants.

Health Care Liability ClaimExpert Medical ReportMotion to DismissTimeliness of ReportAbatementMedical MalpracticeNegligenceDue ProcessTexas ConstitutionAppellate Review
References
32
Case No. 2021-06-0129
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2021

Morton, Dustin v. Morsey Constructors, dba Harper Industries

Dustin Morton, an ironworker, sustained a work injury in January 2020 when a heavy panel struck his head and left shoulder, leading to a fall and a right knee injury. Initial treatment by Dr. David Moore focused on the knee, culminating in surgery and an eight-percent impairment rating. After reaching maximum medical improvement, Mr. Morton developed neck, upper back, and arm pain, which he attributed to the original accident, and sought further medical treatment. The employer, Morsey Constructors, challenged the causation and the request for additional treatment without medical proof. However, the Court ruled in an expedited hearing that medical causation is not required at this interlocutory stage and found Mr. Morton likely to prevail on the merits, thereby ordering Morsey or its carrier to authorize treatment for his neck, upper back, and arm symptoms.

Worker's CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsNeck InjuryUpper Back PainArm NumbnessKnee InjuryMedical CausationOrthopedic SurgeryMaximum Medical Improvement
References
3
Case No. 2015-08-0295
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2016

Anderson, Barry v. Aramark

Barry Anderson, an employee of Aramark, sustained a right-knee injury on May 26, 2015, while performing strenuous duties in the 'mats cell.' Despite reporting the injury and requesting medical attention, Aramark denied his workers' compensation claim, asserting it was not work-related or was pre-existing. Mr. Anderson sought treatment from Dr. Lloyd Robinson and later orthopedic specialist Dr. Anthony Mascioli, who diagnosed a right-knee medial meniscus tear. In an expedited hearing, the Court found Mr. Anderson credible and his injury compensable, ordering Aramark to provide a panel of physicians for his medical treatment. However, the Court denied his request for past medical expenses and temporary disability benefits without prejudice, allowing for future consideration.

Expedited HearingMedical Benefits ClaimRight Knee InjuryMedial Meniscus TearPanel of PhysiciansEmployer's Denial of ClaimInjury CausationTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Treatment AuthorizationWorkplace Accident
References
2
Case No. 03-05-00032-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2007

Board of Medical Examiners for the State of Texas and Donald W. Patrick, M.D., J.D., as Executive Director of the Board of Medical Examiners for the State of Texas v. Vivian Adaobi O. Nzedu, M.D.

The Texas State Board of Medical Examiners denied Dr. Vivian Nzedu's medical license application, citing her failure to pass the USMLE within the statutorily permitted attempts. The Board included an examination attempt made prior to the effective date of the 'three-attempts statute' (September 1, 1993). The trial court initially sided with Dr. Nzedu, ruling that pre-1993 attempts should not be counted. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that counting pre-statute examination attempts is not an unconstitutional retroactive application of the Medical Practice Act, as it merely draws upon antecedent facts and does not impair a vested right. The court deferred to the Board's reasonable interpretation of the statute. The case was remanded for a determination of attorneys' fees.

Medical LicensingUSMLEStatutory InterpretationRetroactivityVested RightsAdministrative LawTexas Medical Practice ActPhysician LicensureExamination RequirementsAppellate Review
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 19,430 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