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. 2015-01-0281
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2018

Tucker, David E. v. Star Transportation

David Tucker, an employee of Star Transportation, sought to change his treating physician for a shoulder injury sustained on July 1, 2015. He expressed a loss of confidence in Dr. Mejia due to perceived ineffectual treatment, improper impairment assessment methodology, and the physician's refusal to complete a Physician Certification Form. The Court, citing precedents like Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions and Baker v. Electrolux, found no legal basis to compel the employer to provide a new panel of physicians. The Court ruled that Mr. Tucker's subjective dissatisfaction and the alleged inadequacies of Dr. Mejia did not warrant a change in treating physician.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryTreating PhysicianMedical TreatmentImpairment RatingAMA GuidesTennessee LawRight to Control Medical TreatmentPhysician Certification FormMMI (Maximum Medical Improvement)
References
3
Case No. 01-14-00767-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Shirley Lenoir, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shana Lenoir and Christopher McKnight , Individually and as Next Friend of Nayla McKnight v. U.T. Physicians

This is a health care liability appeal where Shirley Lenoir and Christopher McKnight, individually and as representatives of the Estate of Shana Lenoir and Nayla McKnight, challenge the trial court's decision to grant U.T. Physicians' plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. The appellants allege that U.T. Physicians' negligence in treating Shana Lenoir’s twin pregnancy, specifically the administration of a medically unnecessary and contraindicated progesterone injection by Nurse Matthews, proximately caused her death. U.T. Physicians claimed sovereign immunity as a governmental unit. Appellants argue that U.T. Physicians is a private non-profit corporation and an independent contractor, not entitled to sovereign immunity, and that a waiver of immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act was sufficiently pled due to the use of tangible physical property.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental UnitIndependent ContractorTexas Tort Claims ActHealth Care LiabilityMedical MalpracticeNegligenceProgesterone InjectionTwin PregnancyWrongful Death
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Billy Overstreet v. TRW Commercial Steering Division

This concurring opinion by Judge William C. Koch, Jr. addresses the legal basis for prohibiting ex parte communications between an employer's counsel and an employee's treating physician in a Workers' Compensation Act claim. While the Court's main conclusion relies on an implied-in-law contract theory, Judge Koch advocates for a fiduciary duty stemming from the physician-patient relationship. He clarifies that physicians have a duty of non-disclosure, subject to statutory exceptions for workers' compensation reports, but these exceptions do not permit ex parte communications. The opinion asserts that employees retain their medical privacy unless explicitly altered by law.

Physician-patient privilegeConfidentialityEx parte communicationWorkers' CompensationFiduciary dutyImplied contractMedical records disclosureHIPAALegal ethicsPatient rights
References
34
Case No. 23-0697
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

State of Texas Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas Texas Medical Board Texas Health and Human Services Commission And Ken Paxton, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Lazaro Loe, Individually and as Next Friend of Luna Loe, a Minor Mary Moe and Matthew Moe, Individually and as Next Friends of Maeve Moe, a Minor Nora Noe, Individually and as Next Friend of Nathan Noe, a Minor Sarah Soe and Steven Soe, Individually and as Next Friends of Samantha Soe, a Minor Gina Goe, Individually and as Next Friend of Grayson Goe, a Minor Pflag, Inc. Richard Ogden Roberts III, M.D. David L. Paul, M.D. Patrick W. O'malley, M.D. And American Association of Physicians for Human

The Supreme Court of Texas reversed and vacated a temporary injunction against Senate Bill 14, which prohibits certain medical treatments for minors related to gender transition. Parents of children with gender dysphoria, along with physicians and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, had challenged the law as unconstitutional, alleging infringements on parental rights, occupational freedom for physicians, and discrimination based on sex and transgender status. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish a probable right to relief, asserting that parental rights are not absolute and the Legislature has constitutional authority to regulate medicine, especially regarding novel treatments for new conditions. The Court also found no unconstitutional discrimination, stating the law treats males and females equally in its prohibitions and that "transgender status" is not a protected class under the Texas Constitution.

Parental RightsMedical RegulationGender DysphoriaConstitutional LawDue Course of LawEqual ProtectionTransgender RightsMinors' Medical TreatmentLegislative AuthorityTexas Supreme Court
References
62
Case No. 533089
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2021

Matter of Barden v. General Physicians PC

Claimant, a patient services representative, sought to amend her workers' compensation claim to include left shoulder aggravation after a work-related injury to her right shoulder. The Workers' Compensation Board disallowed this request, finding that claimant failed to provide sufficient credible medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between her employment and the left shoulder condition. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The court noted that the claimant's treating physician opined the left shoulder pathology was largely preexisting and unrelated to the work injury, and other medical opinions either lacked sufficient weight or were based on inaccurate information, providing no basis to disturb the Board's finding.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryCausationMedical EvidencePreexisting ConditionAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionClaim AmendmentPatient Services Representative
References
10
Case No. ADJ9145724
Regular
Jun 01, 2015

ARZAGA, JOSE vs. CROWN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

This case involves an applicant seeking to select a pain management specialist outside his employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The applicant argued the MPN failed to provide a qualifying specialist within the required 15-mile/30-minute access standard for a primary treating physician. The Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, affirming the applicant's right to choose an out-of-network physician and reimbursement for investigative costs. The majority reasoned that the MPN must meet the closer access standard for a primary treating physician, even if that physician is a specialist. A dissenting opinion argued that a specialist, when chosen as a primary treating physician, should fall under the 30-mile/60-minute access standard for specialists.

Medical Provider NetworkMPNprimary treating physicianpain management specialistaccess standardAdministrative Director's Rule 9767.5investigative costsLabor Code section 5703Lescallett v. Wal-MartMartinez v. New French Bakery
References
2
Case No. 2019-01-0399
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2021

Tate, Meshia v. Daryl Doney d/b/a Middle Tennessee Respiratory

The employee, Meshia Tate, suffered a work-related wrist injury and later a knee injury, treated by authorized physician Dr. Martin Fiala, who performed surgeries and eventually placed her at maximum medical improvement. Dissatisfied, Tate sought an unauthorized second opinion from Dr. Jeffrey Peterson, who recommended further treatment and believed a subsequent meniscal tear was work-related. The trial court sided with Tate, accepting Dr. Peterson's causation opinion and replacing Dr. Fiala as the authorized treating physician, citing Dr. Fiala's perceived failure to treat ongoing symptoms and the employer's initial failure to provide a panel of physicians. On appeal, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that the evidence did not support the causation finding for the new meniscal tear or the replacement of the authorized physician, especially given Dr. Fiala's willingness to continue treatment. The Board emphasized the lack of sufficient expert medical testimony for causation and the need to follow proper procedures for changing authorized physicians.

Workers' CompensationMedical TreatmentCausationMeniscal TearWrist InjuryKnee InjuryTreating PhysicianMaximum Medical ImprovementDegenerative ConditionExpedited Hearing
References
6
Case No. 2021-06-1132
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2022

Eddie, Uncle v. Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee

At an expedited hearing on April 19, 2022, Mr. Eddie sought further medical care and temporary disability benefits for an accepted back injury, including the appointment of Dr. Narendra Singh as his authorized treating physician. The Court denied his requests because he already has an authorized treating physician, Dr. Malcolm Steele, willing to treat him, and Goodwill was accommodating his restrictions when he quit. The Court found Dr. Singh's opinion ambiguous and not sufficiently different from the authorized physicians' opinions to warrant a change. Mr. Eddie's request for temporary disability benefits was also denied as no physician took him completely off work for his work injury and Goodwill was accommodating his restrictions.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical Care Request DeniedTemporary Disability Benefits DeniedAuthorized Treating PhysicianPreexisting ConditionLumbar InjuryBack PainAggravation of InjuryForklift Accident
References
3
Case No. ADJ11995067
Regular
Jul 25, 2025

ADELINA PEREZ vs. KYONG AE YUN, CHONG MYON YUN, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Adelina Perez sought removal of a May 9, 2022, Findings & Order (F&O) by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found Dr. Marcel Ponton's medical-legal report inadmissible and ordered his replacement, arguing Dr. Ponton was a treating physician to whom Labor Code section 4062.3 did not apply. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) treated the petition as one for reconsideration and found that Dr. Ponton was indeed a treating physician, not a panel-selected medical-legal evaluator, rendering section 4062.3 inapplicable. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's F&O, substituted new findings affirming Dr. Ponton's role as a treating physician, and ordered his continuation as the medical-legal neuropsychological evaluator.

RemovalReconsiderationLabor Code section 4062.3Ex parte communicationMedical-legal evaluatorTreating physicianMPNNeuropsychological assessmentTraumatic brain injuryAdmissibility of evidence
References
17
Case No. ANA 0400833
Regular
Aug 18, 2008

WILLIAM GEORGE THOMAS JULIE THOMAS as GUARDIAN AD LITEM and TRUSTEE vs. H&A AUTO, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an award finding industrial injury and permanent total disability. The employer challenged the reliance on the applicant's treating physician's medical reports. The Board affirmed the findings, holding that treating physician reports are admissible under Labor Code sections 4060(b) and 4061.5. The employer failed to rebut the treating physician's opinions by properly invoking independent medical evaluation procedures.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardGuardian Ad LitemTrusteeIndustrial InjuryAuto MechanicNeck InjuryQuadriplegiaTemporary DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityTreating Physician
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 3,264 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