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. 2016-02-0423
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2016

Price, Derrick v, Bobby Chambers d/b/a C&C Contractor

Derrick Price filed a request for an expedited hearing seeking medical and temporary disability benefits, alleging an injury sustained while working for Bobby Chambers d/b/a C&C Contractor. The core issues were Mr. Price's employment status and whether his claimed thoracic spine compression fractures arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. Conflicting testimonies were presented regarding the nature of their work relationship and the occurrence of the alleged fall from a metal walk board. The Court ultimately concluded that Mr. Price was not an employee of Mr. Chambers, based on factors like his freedom to work as he pleased and lack of a formal hiring process. Furthermore, the Court found insufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Price's spine condition resulted from a compensable work accident on the job site, thus denying his request for benefits.

Workers' Compensation ClaimExpedited HearingEmployee Status DeterminationIndependent ContractorArising out of EmploymentCourse and Scope of EmploymentTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsSpinal Compression FractureConflicting Testimony
References
4
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2003

Claim of Peck v. Village of Gouverneur

Claimant, a volunteer firefighter, sustained head, chest, and neck injuries in a 2000 work-related accident. During surgery for these injuries, cancerous growths were discovered along his spine, prompting the employer to request apportionment of his workers' compensation award. Both the treating physician and the employer-retained physician affirmed the causal relationship between the fracture and the work-related accident. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the subsequent Workers’ Compensation Board both ruled against apportionment. The appellate court affirmed, citing that apportionment is inappropriate when a claimant's prior non-compensable condition did not hinder their ability to perform duties.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentVolunteer FirefighterWork-Related InjuryPre-existing ConditionCancer DiagnosisCausally RelatedMedical Expert TestimonyEmployer AppealBoard Decision Affirmed
References
4
Case No. 2019-03-1563A
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2020

Rosasco, Brett v. West Knoxville Painters, LLC

Brett Rosasco, a painter for West Knoxville Painters (WKP), was struck by a falling tree after exiting a portable restroom. He sought medical and temporary disability benefits for his resulting injuries, which included fractures in his spine requiring fusion surgery. WKP denied benefits, arguing the incident was an 'act of God' and did not arise out of or occur in the course and scope of his employment. The Court held an Expedited Hearing and found that Mr. Rosasco failed to demonstrate that his injury arose out of his employment, as his work did not place him at an increased risk peculiar to his employment compared to the general public. Therefore, his request for benefits was denied at this time.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingAct of God DefenseArising Out of EmploymentCourse and Scope of EmploymentFalling Tree InjuryDisability Benefits DenialTennessee LawCausal ConnectionIncreased Risk
References
6
Case No. 2021-06-0071, State File No. 80044-2021
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2022

Martinez, Marcus Sosa v. Halloran Investment Properties, LLC

Mr. Sosa Martinez sought medical treatment, reimbursement for past medical expenses, and temporary disability benefits for a severe spine infection and right-wrist fracture, alleging they stemmed from lifting heavy rocks at a Halloran jobsite. Halloran Investment Properties, LLC, denied employer status and contested the work-relatedness of the injuries. The Court found Mr. Sosa Martinez unlikely to prove an employment relationship with Halloran or that his injuries were work-related, especially given medical evidence suggesting a spontaneous infection not linked to heavy lifting. Consequently, the Court denied Mr. Sosa Martinez's requested relief.

Expedited HearingEmployment Status DisputeIndependent ContractorMedical CausationSpinal InfectionWrist FractureWorkers' Compensation ClaimsTemporary DisabilityMedical Expense ReimbursementTennessee Law
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 771 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