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. 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. 01-07-01113-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2008

Paul Turner v. Precision Surgical, LLC

Paul Turner, a former sales representative for Precision Surgical, L.L.C., appealed a take-nothing judgment stemming from his retaliatory-discharge and Sabine Pilot claims. Turner alleged his termination was a result of his refusal to commit insurance fraud by misrepresenting a work-related injury to claim health insurance instead of workers' compensation, and subsequently for filing a workers' compensation claim. Precision Surgical countered that Turner was terminated due to unreliability and dishonesty. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the disjunctive submission of jury questions because the two claims were mutually exclusive, and even if there were an error, it would have been harmless since the jury considered and rejected both theories of recovery.

Retaliatory DischargeSabine Pilot ClaimWorkers' Compensation ClaimInsurance FraudJury Charge ErrorConditional Jury SubmissionDisjunctive Jury SubmissionMutually Exclusive Legal TheoriesAbuse of DiscretionHarmless Error
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission v. East Side Surgical Center

This case addresses 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 and related entities sued the Commission, seeking to invalidate default rules that applied in the absence of specific fee guidelines, arguing an unlawful delegation of fee-setting authority to insurance carriers. The district court initially declared rule 133.304® invalid, but the appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the rule did not constitute an unlawful delegation of the Commission’s authority. The court further clarified that providers are entitled to fair and reasonable reimbursement, not a statutory right to fee guidelines established by rule, and affirmed that East Side was not entitled to its usual and customary fee.

Workers' CompensationFee GuidelinesAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationDelegation of AuthorityInsurance CarriersAmbulatory Surgical CentersJudicial ReviewDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive Relief
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Surgicare Surgical v. National Interstate Insurance

This case addresses whether an insurer complies with New York's 11 NYCRR 68.6 regulation by reimbursing for out-of-state medical services according to the host state's (New Jersey's) no-fault fee schedule. Plaintiff Surgicare Surgical, assignee of an injured party, sought full payment for surgery performed in New Jersey, but defendant National Interstate Insurance Company paid a reduced amount based on New Jersey's fee schedule. The court affirmed the defendant's method, ruling that when medical services are rendered in another jurisdiction with its own fee schedule, the 'permissible' charge under that schedule constitutes the 'prevailing fee' under New York's regulation. The decision emphasized alignment with legislative intent to contain no-fault insurance costs and reduce judicial burden, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint and denying its cross-motion.

No-Fault BenefitsInsurance LawFee Schedule DisputeOut-of-State Medical ServicesNew York RegulationsNew Jersey Fee ScheduleStatutory InterpretationAutomobile AccidentReimbursement DisputeSummary Judgment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Turner v. Precision Surgical, L.L.C.

Paul Turner was discharged from Precision Surgical, L.L.C. and subsequently filed claims for retaliatory discharge and for refusing to perform an illegal act (insurance fraud). He alleged he was terminated after refusing to file a fraudulent health insurance claim instead of a workers' compensation claim. The trial court submitted jury questions for both claims disjunctively, requiring a 'no' answer to the insurance fraud claim before the workers' compensation claim could be answered. The jury found against Turner on both claims, leading to a take-nothing judgment. Turner appealed, arguing the conditional submission was improper. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that the two claims were mutually exclusive and that any error in the jury instruction was harmless as the jury had considered and rejected both theories of recovery.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers compensationInsurance fraudJury instructionConditional submissionDisjunctive submissionMutually exclusive claimsHarmful errorSabine Pilot claimEmployment law
References
40
Case No. 2017-01-0699
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2018

Matheson, Kathy v. QCJC, Inc.

Kathy Matheson, a registered nurse, sustained a compensable left knee injury on November 22, 2016. Her knee surgery, scheduled for June 19, 2017, was postponed by Dr. Matthew Bernard due to her elevated A1C level (11.9) related to noninsulin-dependent diabetes, as a level of eight or lower was deemed necessary for surgical clearance to prevent complications. QCJC, Inc., the employer, ceased temporary total disability (TTD) benefits from August 2 through November 13, 2017, arguing the delay was due to Ms. Matheson's personal health. The Court, applying the 'employer takes employee as found' and 'direct and natural consequence' rules, found that the pre-surgical diabetic clearance was 'reasonably necessary' to treat the work-related knee injury. Therefore, the Court ordered QCJC to pay Ms. Matheson $12,678.05 in past due TTD benefits for the disputed period.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Total DisabilityTTD BenefitsKnee InjuryPre-existing ConditionDiabetes ManagementSurgical ClearanceMedical NecessityCausationExpedited Hearing
References
5
Case No. 05-15-00161-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2015

in Re: DeSoto Surgicare Partners, Ltd., Successor-In-Interest to Baylor Surgicare at Duncanville, LLC Texas Health Ventures Group, LLC And United Surgical Partners International, Inc.

This document is a sworn record for a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Fifth Court of Appeals, Dallas, Texas. The proceeding stems from an underlying cause in the 193rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, where Patricia Hughes is the plaintiff against DeSoto Surgicare Partners, Ltd., Texas Health Ventures Group, LLC, and United Surgical Partners International, Inc. The core dispute involves the lease of the Duncanville Surgery Center, its alleged abandonment, failure to maintain building systems, and removal of a generator. The record includes various exhibits such as internal communications, financial statements, a clinical due diligence report on the surgery center, and deposition testimony concerning the facility's operations and the removed generator.

TexasCourt of AppealsWrit of MandamusCommercial Real EstateLease DisputeSurgery CenterProperty LawCivil ProcedureDiscoveryMandamus Petition
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Russell v. Crutchfield

This medical malpractice case involves a plaintiff who underwent gallbladder surgery by the defendant in January 1995. Post-operatively, the plaintiff developed complications, revealing that surgical clips were mistakenly placed on the right hepatic duct instead of the cystic duct, causing bile leakage. The jury awarded the plaintiff $1,000,000, which the trial court remitted to $900,000. The defendant appealed, raising issues regarding a denied continuance, the admissibility of medical bills as hearsay, and the recovery of expenses beyond TennCare. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in any of the defendant's contentions.

Medical malpracticeSurgical errorBile duct injuryGallbladder surgeryNegligenceDamagesRemittiturExpert witnessContinuanceHearsay evidence
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wehmeyer v. O'Dell

This medical malpractice case involves patient Dewey O’Dell, who sued Dr. Donald L. Wehmeyer after experiencing complications following hand surgery. O’Dell alleged a tragic breakdown in communication between the doctor's office and patient during Dr. Wehmeyer's absence, rather than surgical negligence. The jury found both parties 50% negligent, awarding O’Dell $270,000 in total damages, reduced to $135,000 for his comparative negligence. Illinois Employers Insurance of Wausau, O'Dell's worker's compensation carrier, intervened to recover subrogation rights. On appeal, Dr. Wehmeyer argued there was no evidence of his negligence as pleaded. The appellate court agreed, reversing the trial court's judgment and rendering a take-nothing judgment against O’Dell and the insurer, finding no evidence of Dr. Wehmeyer's negligence or pleadings to impose vicarious liability for his employees' actions.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceProximate CauseJury VerdictAppellate ReviewNo EvidenceVicarious LiabilityCommunication BreakdownSurgical CareDamages
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duke v. Wilson

Mary Sue Wilson suffered a work-related injury to her right knee. During surgery at Medical Center Hospital, Dr. Richard Duke and his surgical team mistakenly operated on her left knee, leading to complications and the loss of her left kneecap. Wilson sued for medical negligence, and a jury found Dr. Duke 60% liable and the Hospital 40% liable, awarding total damages of $761,841.70. The trial court limited the Hospital's liability to $100,000, assessing the remainder against Dr. Duke, and denied Hartford's (the worker's compensation carrier) plea in intervention for subrogation. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment against Dr. Duke, including the application of joint and several liability and prejudgment interest on future damages. However, the court reversed and remanded the denial of Hartford's plea, recognizing its subrogation right for payments made for the "extension injury" to the left knee.

Medical MalpracticeSurgical ErrorWrong-site SurgeryWorkers' CompensationSubrogationJoint and Several LiabilityPrejudgment InterestFuture DamagesComparative ResponsibilityGovernmental Immunity
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 269 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