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

Claim of Steuber v. Home Properties, Inc.

Claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits after a March 2010 work fall, establishing injuries to his back, left knee, and left hip. After thoracic spine surgery in 2011, the employer and its workers' compensation carrier objected to coverage, arguing it was not causally connected to the initial claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board agreed, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The court credited an independent medical examiner's opinion that the thoracic condition and subsequent falls were unrelated to the compensable accident, despite the claimant's orthopedic surgeon's testimony suggesting otherwise.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsCausal RelationThoracic Spine InjuryDegenerative ConditionIndependent Medical ExaminationSubsequent FallsBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewCredibility AssessmentSubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. 04-19-00538-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2021

William Alec Tisdall, M.D. and William A. Tisdall, M.D., P.A. D/B/A Spine & Joint Pain Specialists v. Thomas Varebrook and Rebecca Varebrook

William Alec Tisdall, M.D., and his medical practice appealed a final judgment stemming from a medical negligence lawsuit initiated by Thomas and Rebecca Varebrook. The jury found Tisdall negligent, awarding substantial damages after Thomas developed a severe septic sacroiliac joint infection following steroid injections administered by Dr. Tisdall, which left him permanently disabled and unable to continue his police career. On appeal, Tisdall argued that the trial court erred by allowing improper jury argument, admitting cumulative and prejudicial independent medical examinations, and denying a motion for mistrial. The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the jury argument was invited error, the medical examination evidence was properly admitted given its probative value and lack of unfair prejudice, and any error regarding the motion for mistrial was unpreserved and, if preserved, cured by the court's instruction to disregard.

Medical negligenceJury verdict appealEvidentiary rulingsImproper jury argumentIndependent medical examinationsMotion for mistrialInstruction to disregardStandard of careCausationDamages award
References
31
Case No. 14-15-00295-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2015

Khyati Undavia, Minu RX LTF and Minu GP, LLC v. Avant Medical Group, P.A., D/B/A Interventional Spine Associates, and Brett L. Garner, D/B/A Allied Medical Centers

Appellees consist of a chiropractor and the various companies through which he carries out his chiropractic business. Appellants are the owner and property manager of Providian, a landlord that leased office space to Appellees. In 2013, after the lease ended, one of the Appellees and another company owned by the chiropractor sued Providian for breach of the lease agreement. The parties settled that lawsuit and entered into a broad-form mutual release (“Mutual Release”) in which the parties released any claims against each other, whether known or unknown. One year later, the chiropractor discovered that the landlord’s property manager—in a mail mix-up—had accidently indorsed and deposited checks belonging to the chiropractor during the term of the lease. He and his companies brought suit against the property manager and the owner of landlord for the alleged-conversion. Appellants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Appellee’s claims fell squarely within the broad scope of the Mutual Release. The trial court agreed in-part, and granted summary judgment with respect to Nisal Corp.—one of the companies that actually signed the Mutual Release. The trial court refused to extend the Mutual Release to the other remaining Appellees, who are intimately connected with both Nisal Corp. and Sterling Practice Management, the other signatory of the Mutual Release. Without doubt, the broad language of the Mutual Release bars any and all claims that Appellees have against Appellants, because they all arise out of the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. That relationship was squarely at issue in the original lawsuit that engendered the Mutual Release.

Contract DisputeInterlocutory AppealSummary JudgmentRelease AgreementAgency RelationshipRes JudicataStatute of LimitationsConversionFraudulent ConcealmentLandlord-Tenant
References
56
Case No. 2022-07-0138
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2024

Hepner, Charles v. MC Produce, LLC, d/b/a McCartney Produce

Mr. Charles Hepner, an employee, sought permanent disability benefits for neck and low back injuries sustained in February 2021 while working for MC Produce, LLC. He initially claimed permanent total disability or extraordinary benefits, but the Court denied these claims. The case involved conflicting impairment ratings from three physicians: Dr. Kyle Stephens (orthopedic surgeon, 2%), Dr. Jacob Schwarz (neurosurgeon, 25% for cervical spine), and Dr. James Wiesman (orthopedic surgeon, 3% for lumbar spine). The Court accredited Dr. Schwarz's 25% rating for the cervical spine and Dr. Wiesman's 3% rating for the lumbar spine, totaling a 27% permanent partial disability. Applying multipliers for not returning to work and age, Mr. Hepner was awarded $91,250.39 in benefits. The Court denied the education multiplier and dismissed the claim against the Subsequent Injury Fund. Future medical benefits were granted with Dr. Stephens designated as the treating physician.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityCervical Spine InjuryLumbar Spine InjuryImpairment RatingMedical Expert TestimonyTennessee LawIncreased BenefitsNeurosurgeon EvaluationOrthopedic Surgeon Evaluation
References
5
Case No. ADJ10679103
Regular
Dec 14, 2017

LARRY SYKES vs. THE ANSCHUTZ CORPORATION, STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior finding of industrial injury to the applicant's lumbar spine. The Board found that the existing medical reporting from Dr. Hong, Dr. Jamasbi, and the PQME Dr. Schofferman did not constitute substantial evidence to support this lumbar spine injury finding. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level to develop the record further on the lumbar spine injury issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryCervical SpineThoracic SpineLumbar SpineStagehandSecurity OfficerMedical Treatment RecordsSubstantial Evidence
References
0
Case No. ADJ6626529
Regular
Nov 05, 2015

NICOLAS WALKER vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to further study the issues in this case. The WCAB rescinded the prior Findings of Fact & Award, denied the defendant's motion to be relieved of stipulation regarding the thoracic spine, and found that the applicant sustained industrial injury to his cervical spine, shoulders, and thoracic spine. The WCAB deferred issues of permanent disability, apportionment, and attorney's fees, returning the matter to the WCJ for further record development.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNicolas WalkerLos Angeles Unified School DistrictSedgewick Claims Management ServicesInc.ADJ6626529Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings of Fact & AwardWCJcervical spine
References
5
Case No. ADJ7924562
Regular
Sep 19, 2014

RAUL HERNANDEZ vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ decision that found an industrial injury to the low back but not the cervical spine or left ankle, with no permanent disability or further medical treatment. The applicant argued the QME's reports were insubstantial and that prior permanent disability was not considered. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the original award to include injury to the cervical spine, affirming the remainder of the decision. Therefore, the applicant sustained injury to his low back and cervical spine.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryLow Back InjuryCervical Spine InjuryPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code Section 4664(b)
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 491 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