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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hawkins v. Center for Spinal Surgery

Demica Hawkins, a Black former Accounts Payable Coordinator, sued her employer, The Center for Spinal Surgery (CSS), alleging race discrimination, retaliation, and FMLA interference. The lawsuit stemmed from denied pay raises, disciplinary actions, and ultimately her termination while on pregnancy leave, which Hawkins claims was discriminatory and retaliatory. CSS filed a renewed motion for summary judgment, and Hawkins filed a partial motion for summary judgment. The court granted in part and denied in part CSS's motion, dismissing Hawkins' pregnancy discrimination and certain retaliation claims. However, Hawkins' retaliatory discharge and FMLA interference claims related to her 2013 termination will proceed to trial due to genuine disputes of material fact regarding CSS's motivations.

Race DiscriminationRetaliationFMLA InterferenceSummary JudgmentEmployment LawTitle VIIPregnancy Discrimination ActMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkHonest Belief RulePretext
References
64
Case No. 08-11-00331-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2012

Vincent Maes and Cynthia Maes, as Next Friend of Isabel G. Maes, a Minor Child and the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. El Paso Orthopaedic Surgery Group, P. A.

Vincent Maes sustained a spinal injury in 2000 from a motor vehicle accident, leading to a lumbar laminectomy in 2001 by Dr. Paul Cho, an employee of El Paso Orthopaedic Surgery Group, P.A. (EPOSG). Following the surgery, Mr. Maes allegedly experienced severe neurological issues. In 2010, Vincent and Cynthia Maes, acting as next friend for their minor daughter Isabel, along with The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICTSP), filed a lawsuit against EPOSG, asserting claims for Isabel's loss of parental consortium and alleging vicarious liability for Dr. Cho's negligence. EPOSG sought summary judgment, contending that Isabel's claims were time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to Mr. Maes's original claim and also by the prior dismissal of Mr. Maes's claim with prejudice in 2004. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of EPOSG. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that claims for loss of parental consortium are derivative in nature and are consequently extinguished when the statute of limitations on the injured parent's underlying claim expires or when that underlying claim is dismissed with prejudice.

Medical MalpracticeParental ConsortiumSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsDerivative ClaimsDismissal with PrejudiceTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeHealth Care LiabilityMinor's ClaimsAppellate Review
References
28
Case No. 03-03-00435-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission/East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery And Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. v. East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery/Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case involves the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission's failure to establish fee guidelines for ambulatory surgical centers under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. East Side Surgical Center, Clinic for Special Surgery, and intervenor Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. (collectively "East Side") sued the Commission to invalidate certain default rules that applied when specific guidelines were absent. The district court declared one rule (133.304(i)) invalid and enjoined its enforcement, citing unlawful delegation of authority. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment regarding the rule's invalidity and dissolved the injunction, citing a Texas Supreme Court decision finding no unlawful delegation. The court affirmed that East Side was not entitled to its usual and customary fee in the absence of specific guidelines.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawDelegation of AuthorityRulemakingAmbulatory Surgical CentersJudicial ReviewInsurance CarrierFee GuidelinesFair and Reasonable RatesStatutory Interpretation
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maes v. EL PASO ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY GROUP

Vincent and Cynthia Maes, along with The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICTSP), appealed the dismissal of their health care liability suit against El Paso Orthopaedic Surgery Group (EPOSG). The lawsuit originated from complications Vincent Maes suffered following spinal surgery performed by Dr. Paul Cho, a neurosurgeon affiliated with EPOSG. The trial court dismissed claims against EPOSG because the expert reports submitted by Dr. James P. Bradley and Dr. Robert Wheeler Rand did not explicitly address EPOSG's breach of the standard of care or name its associated physicians. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, emphasizing the necessity of specific expert reports for each health care provider. Additionally, the court upheld the severance of claims against EPOSG from the remaining claims against Dr. Cho.

Health Care LiabilityMedical MalpracticeExpert Report SufficiencyVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorDismissal With PrejudiceSeverance Of ClaimsSpinal Surgery ComplicationsNeurosurgical NegligenceStandard of Care Breach
References
8
Case No. 08-06-00071-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2007

Vincent Maes and Cynthia Maes and the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. El Paso Orthopaedic Surgery Group

Vincent and Cynthia Maes and The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania appealed the dismissal of a health care liability suit against El Paso Orthopaedic Surgery Group (EPOSG). The Maeses alleged negligence and vicarious liability against EPOSG after Vincent Maes suffered severe complications following back surgery by Dr. Paul Cho, an EPOSG neurosurgeon. The trial court dismissed all claims against EPOSG, finding the expert reports insufficient to address EPOSG's breach of the standard of care, even for vicarious liability claims. On appeal, the Court reviewed whether an expert report was necessary for vicarious liability claims and if the severance of claims against EPOSG was proper. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the dismissal of all claims against EPOSG and the severance.

Health Care LiabilityMedical MalpracticeExpert Report SufficiencyVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorDismissal with PrejudiceSeverance of ClaimsSpinal Surgery ComplicationsNeuroscienceOrthopedic Surgery Group Liability
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maes ex rel. Maes v. El Paso Orthopaedic Surgery Group, P.A.

Vincent and Cynthia Maes, as next friend of their minor daughter Isabel, and The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICTSP), appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of El Paso Orthopaedic Surgery Group, P.A. (EPOSG). Isabel's claim was for loss of parental consortium due to her father Vincent Maes's alleged disabling injury following surgery performed by an EPOSG employee, Dr. Paul Cho, in 2001. Vincent Maes's initial lawsuit against EPOSG was dismissed with prejudice in 2004, and the two-year statute of limitations for his underlying claim expired in 2003. EPOSG moved for summary judgment, arguing Isabel's claims were time-barred and barred by the prior dismissal of her father's underlying claim. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Isabel's derivative loss of parental consortium claims were extinguished by both the running of the statute of limitations on her father's claim and its prior dismissal with prejudice.

medical malpracticeloss of parental consortiumstatute of limitationssummary judgmentderivative claimshealthcare liabilityminor's claimsprior litigationdismissal with prejudiceTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
26
Case No. 08-06-00170-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2008

Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Weldon W. Weeks

This case concerns an appeal by Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company against a district court's judgment favoring workers' compensation claimant, Weldon Weeks. The core dispute revolved around the legal sufficiency of evidence for Weeks' impairment rating and maximum medical improvement (MMI) date, following an on-the-job spinal injury and subsequent fusion surgery. The district court had adopted a 25 percent impairment rating and April 17, 2002 MMI date, based on Dr. Chapman's report, which considered the spinal fusion surgery in violation of AMA Guides for impairment ratings. The Court of Appeals, affirming that surgery is not a permissible factor under the AMA Guides' Injury Model, found Dr. Chapman's reliance on the spinal fusion legally insufficient. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court’s judgment and rendered judgment for Fireman’s Fund, effectively upholding the Division's original decision of a 10 percent impairment rating and January 28, 2002 MMI date.

Impairment RatingMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Spinal Fusion SurgeryAMA GuidesLegal SufficiencyAppellate ReviewTrial Court JudgmentDesignated DoctorTexas Labor CodeDiagnosis-Related Estimate (DRE)
References
13
Case No. ADJ4577451 (WCK 0063127) ADJ336675 (WCK 0063128)
Regular
Sep 10, 2013

EDUARDO GUERRA vs. POMEROY CORPORATION, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the WCJ's award of total temporary disability and future medical treatment, including spinal surgery. The Board rescinded the WCJ's decision because the record regarding the necessity of spinal surgery was not fully developed. Specifically, Dr. Harf's second opinion report was incomplete due to unobtained diagnostic tests, preventing a definitive recommendation on surgery. The case is returned to the trial level to further develop the medical evidence on the surgery issue and other deferred matters.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary Disability IndemnitySpinal SurgerySecond Opinion PhysicianUtilization ReviewPenaltiesDiscoveryDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed
References
6
Case No. ADJ1124701 (OAK 0304697)
Regular
Jan 25, 2010

GENE THOMAS vs. SLEEP TRAIN MATTRESS CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior decision favoring the applicant's spinal surgery, finding that proper procedural steps were not followed. The employer's utilization review (UR) had denied the surgery, but neither party followed the required second-opinion process under Labor Code section 4062(b). The WCAB returned the case to the trial level, allowing the employer ten days from receipt of the decision to object to the surgery and initiate the second-opinion process. This decision aligns with the WCAB's en banc ruling in *Cervantes*, which clarified the procedures for handling spinal surgery disputes after UR denials.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewLabor Code section 4062(b)Spinal SurgerySecond OpinionCervantes v. El Aguila Food ProductsACOEM GuidelinesExperimental TreatmentEn Banc DecisionAdministrative Director Rules
References
4
Case No. ADJ7117844
Regular
Dec 05, 2011

Tommy Robison vs. CITY OF MARICOPA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an award of spinal surgery for Tommy Robison. The employer argued the award was improper because the Spinal Surgery Second Opinion (SSSO) report was untimely and they had implicitly agreed to an Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) opinion. The Board found the employer failed to prove a timely objection to the treating physician's recommendation or timely Utilization Review at the hearing. Therefore, the treating physician's recommendation for surgery was controlling, despite the tardiness of the SSSO report, and an AME's opinion did not waive the SSSO process.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeny ReconsiderationSpinal SurgeryAgreed Medical EvaluatorSecond Opinion EvaluatorTimelinessLabor CodeUtilization ReviewTreating Physician
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,440 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