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. 02-23-00220-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2025

Bianco Brain and Spine, PLLC and Nikhil Kanti Patel, M.D. v. Larry Jones and Shelley Jones

This case concerns a medical malpractice claim brought by Larry and Shelley Jones against Bianco Brain and Spine, PLLC and Dr. Nikhil Kanti Patel. Mr. Jones suffered a cauda equina injury during spine surgery performed by Dr. Patel. The jury found Dr. Patel negligent, and his negligence proximately caused Mr. Jones's injury. On appeal, Dr. Patel challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence. The Court affirmed the judgment against Dr. Patel, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Dr. Patel's intraoperative surgical technique (removing existing hardware before stabilizing the L3-L4 junction) breached the standard of care and caused the injury. Bianco Brain and Spine, PLLC was sued under a theory of respondeat superior. The Court reversed the judgment imposing liability on Bianco, holding that the Joneses waived their independent ground of recovery for respondeat superior by failing to submit a jury question on this claim, and the evidence of Dr. Patel's employment status was not conclusive.

Medical MalpracticeMedical NegligenceSpine SurgeryCauda Equina InjuryRespondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyExpert TestimonyProximate Cause
References
87
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00599 [224 AD3d 428]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2024

Matter of New Millennium Pain & Spine Medicine, P.C. v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

This case involves two appeals by New Millennium Pain & Spine Medicine, P.C. against Garrison Property & Casualty Insurance Company and GEICO Casualty Company. New Millennium sought to vacate master arbitration awards that denied its claims for no-fault benefits for medical services. The Supreme Court denied these applications. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decisions, stating that an arbitrator's award will not be set aside unless it is irrational. The court also addressed the argument regarding a 20% wage offset in no-fault benefits, finding it unavailing under Insurance Law § 5102 (b). Ultimately, New Millennium was not entitled to attorneys' fees as it was not the prevailing party.

No-fault benefitsarbitration awardvacaturinsurance lawwage offsetappellate reviewmedical servicesno-fault policy exhaustionattorneys' feesCPLR Article 75
References
8
Case No. 14-07-00887-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2009

Tanya E. Dowell v. Theken Spine, L.L.C

Tanya E. Dowell appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Theken Spine, LLC, arguing lack of proper notice for the summary judgment motion and hearing. Dowell's motion for summary judgment was granted after her certified mail for the notice was returned "unclaimed." The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Dowell failed to provide verified proof at the time of the summary judgment ruling to rebut the presumption of actual notice. The court also upheld the denial of Dowell's motion for new trial, stating that a complete record of the hearing on the motion was not presented by the appellant, thus precluding a finding of abuse of discretion by the trial court.

Summary JudgmentNoticeDue ProcessCertified MailUnclaimed MailPresumption of ReceiptMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedureTexas Rules of Civil Procedure
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ghazali v. Southland Corp.

Gloria Reyes Ghazali, surviving spouse of Masoud Ghazali, sued Southland Corporation for gross negligence after her husband was shot and killed during a robbery at a Southland convenience store. Ghazali alleged Southland's failure to provide security and proper employee training constituted gross negligence, leading to her husband's death. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Southland, arguing the petition failed to state a cause of action, especially since the deceased received workers' compensation benefits, which typically bars common law negligence claims against employers. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the case for trial, holding that the plaintiff's pleadings sufficiently stated a cause of action for gross negligence to seek exemplary damages, as permitted by the Workers' Compensation Act in death cases, and that material issues of fact remained for a jury to determine.

Gross NegligenceWorkers CompensationExemplary DamagesSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityRobberyWrongful DeathProximate CauseConscious IndifferenceTexas Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hatcher v. Augustus

The plaintiff, Philip Hatcher, a 7-Eleven store manager, initiated an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against the franchisee, Warner Augustus, and the franchisor, Southland Corporation. Hatcher alleged wrongful termination based on his religion after being fired for refusing to work on Sunday mornings. Southland Corporation moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not Hatcher's employer within the context of Title VII. The court applied a 'hybrid test,' which combines economic realities and common law agency tests, to determine employer status. Despite Southland providing payroll services to the franchisee, the court found that Augustus had exclusive control over Hatcher's employment. The court concluded that Southland was not Hatcher's 'employer' under Title VII and granted Southland's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it.

Title VIIReligious DiscriminationFranchisor LiabilityEmployer-Employee RelationshipSummary JudgmentFranchise AgreementHybrid TestControl TestEconomic Realities TestEmployment Law
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greene v. Southland Corp.

Plaintiff Jacquelyn Greene, a black female, filed a class action lawsuit against The Southland Corporation, alleging employment discrimination based on race and sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal statutes. She also included claims under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Texas Workmen's Compensation Act. Greene sought to represent a nationwide class of black and/or female employees affected by Southland's discriminatory practices. The court, presided over by Judge Robert M. Hill, considered the motion for class certification. While acknowledging statistical evidence of discrimination in Southland's District No. 1603, the court determined that Greene could not adequately represent both blacks and females due to potential conflicts of interest between these groups. The court deferred a final decision on class certification, requiring Greene to designate which subclass (blacks or females) she wished to represent, with an opportunity for an intervenor to represent the undesignated subclass. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied.

Employment DiscriminationClass ActionTitle VIIRace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationRehabilitation ActWorkers' Compensation ActAdequacy of RepresentationConflict of InterestSubclasses
References
19
Case No. ADJ8081180
Regular
Mar 14, 2014

SILVIA ESTRADA vs. TAMTAM MEDICAL GROUP, INC., PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claimant, Southland Spine & Rehabilitation, seeking reconsideration of a denial of its lien. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that Southland's lien was barred. The WCJ previously ruled that the applicant's claim was resolved by a compromise and release and was barred as a post-termination claim, making the lien derivative and therefore also barred. The WCAB found that Southland failed to establish industrial injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of evidence and that this issue was waived by not being raised earlier.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantInjury AOE/COECompromise and ReleaseLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-termination claimDerivative rightsPreponderance of evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southland Corp. v. Burnett

This case is an appeal from a wrongful discharge judgment where the jury awarded the plaintiff, Patsy E. Burnett, damages for lost wages, insurance benefits, mental anguish, and exemplary damages. The defendant, The Southland Corporation, appealed. The appellate court identified two key errors by the trial court. First, the trial court improperly admitted a Texas Employment Commission Appeal Tribunal Decision into evidence because it was not disclosed during discovery. Second, the court erred by allowing evidence of Southland's gross monthly receipts, which is not a proper measure for determining exemplary damages. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial due to these errors.

Wrongful DischargeAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary RulesDiscovery SanctionsHearsay EvidenceExemplary DamagesProcedural ErrorRemandTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
4
Case No. ADJ7200556
Regular
Aug 26, 2014

LUCIA MONTES vs. TARGET CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Target Corporation's petition for reconsideration. However, the matter is returned to the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) for further proceedings regarding sanctions. The WCJ recommended sanctions against a lien claimant, Southland Spine & Rehabilitation, for failing to appear at a lien conference after their lien was dismissed. Southland's arguments that they were not considered a "party" under the regulations were found to be without merit.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantLien ConferenceSanctionsLabor Code Sec. 5813WCJDismissed LienTitle 8 CCR Sec. 10205Title 8 CCR Sec. 10240
References
0
Case No. SAU8840977
Regular
Nov 03, 2025

ERIC BRAGER vs. RKL TECHNOLOGIES, CENTER FOR BETTER HEALTH dba SOUTHLAND SPINE AND REHABILITATION

Liaison counsel for insurance carriers sought reconsideration or removal of a Discovery Order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 1, 2025, which voided prior orders and mandated refiling of documents. The carriers argued lack of jurisdiction, insufficient evidence, and violation of due process, while a lien claimant opposed, asserting the judge was disqualified. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the Discovery Order was not a final order, but granted removal, concluding the order violated due process due to lack of notice and a fair hearing. Consequently, the Appeals Board rescinded the Discovery Order and returned the matter for further proceedings to properly adjudicate the allegations against the prior WCJ's orders.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalDiscovery OrderVoiding Prior OrdersDisqualification of JudgeDue ProcessFair HearingLabor Code Section 5909Labor Code Section 5313
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 508 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