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. 03-14-00726-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2014

Texas San Marcos Treatment Center, L.P. D/B/A San Marcos Treatment Center v. Veronica Payton

Texas San Marcos Treatment Center appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss Veronica Payton's health care liability claim. Payton alleged negligence after being assaulted by a patient at the treatment center. The appellant argues that the expert report provided by Dr. William H. Reid is deficient, lacking factual support and specificity concerning the standard of care, its breach, and causation, as required by Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. The appellant asserts the trial court abused its discretion by finding the report adequate and requests dismissal of the claims.

Medical MalpracticeExpert ReportMotion to DismissAbuse of DiscretionStandard of CareBreach of DutyCausationHealth Care Liability ClaimPsychiatric FacilityEmployee Assault
References
25
Case No. E2014-00302-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2015

American Heritage Apartments, Inc. v. The Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority, Hamilton County, Tennessee

The plaintiff, American Heritage Apartments, Inc., challenged a monthly flat charge imposed by the Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority (County WWTA) for sewer lateral repairs. The trial court granted summary judgment to the County WWTA, finding no private right of action under the Utility District Law of 1937 (UDL). On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, concluding the UDL was inapplicable as the County WWTA was formed under the Tennessee Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority Act (WWTA Act). The appellate court held that the WWTA Act implicitly provides a private right of action for ultra vires and contract claims. The court also affirmed the trial court's alternative ruling that class action certification for affected customers was appropriate.

Water UtilityWastewater TreatmentFlat Rate ChargeClass Action CertificationSummary Judgment ReversalPrivate Right of ActionUltra Vires ClaimGovernmental ImmunityUtility District LawWater and Wastewater Treatment Authority Act
References
48
Case No. 08-11-00264-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2014

Maria G. Thompson/Luis Marioni, D.C. v. Jaime Stolar, M.D., Alivio Medical Center, Alivio Treatment Centers, P.A. and Luis Marioni, D.C./Maria G. Thompson

This multi-party appeal originated from a medical and chiropractic malpractice lawsuit filed by Maria G. Thompson against Dr. Jaime Stolar, Dr. Luis Marioni, and Alivio Medical Center and Alivio Treatment Centers, P.A. Thompson alleged negligence resulting in severe knee injuries, including infection and fusions, following injections and treatment. A jury found Dr. Stolar and Dr. Marioni negligent, awarding damages. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment against Dr. Marioni due to insufficient evidence of causation but affirmed the judgment against Dr. Stolar. The court also upheld the denial of Thompson's claims regarding damages and apparent agency against Alivio.

Medical MalpracticeChiropractic MalpracticeKnee InjuryKnee InfectionSpontaneous FusionSurgical FusionNegligenceCausationDamages AssessmentApparent Agency
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rozewicz v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This opinion addresses a complex medical malpractice case involving the death of Mrs. Rosewicz, a Jehovah's Witness, who refused blood transfusions due to religious beliefs. Justice Lehner explores three categories of relevant legal precedents: government benefit denials for religious refusal of treatment, tortfeasor liability and mitigation of damages, and malpractice claims where a patient refused life-saving treatment on religious grounds. The court declines to charge the jury on mitigation of damages, deeming it inappropriate for this specific case. Instead, the judge rules that the jury will be instructed on the principles of assumption of risk and comparative fault, allowing for the apportionment of liability between the defendant's alleged negligence and the decedent's refusal of blood transfusions, consistent with decisions in Shorter v Drury and Corlett v Caserta.

Medical MalpracticeReligious FreedomBlood Transfusion RefusalJehovah's WitnessAssumption of RiskComparative FaultMitigation of DamagesWrongful DeathJury InstructionsNegligence
References
12
Case No. 2021-05-0288
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2021

Knott, Rhonda v. Great Lakes Cheese of TN, LLC

Rhonda Knott, an employee of Great Lakes Cheese of TN., Inc., sought temporary disability benefits, medical treatment, and penalties following a workplace injury in October 2020. She initially received authorized treatment from Dr. Michael Bowman but later pursued unauthorized treatment with Dr. Colin Looney for a knee injury, claiming her employer failed to address it adequately. When Great Lakes offered a new panel of physicians, Ms. Knott refused to select one, leading to the suspension of her temporary disability benefits. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims at Murfreesboro denied Ms. Knott's requests, ruling that she failed to demonstrate justification for her unauthorized medical treatment or that her employer had wrongfully terminated her benefits. The court emphasized that Great Lakes had no notice of a specific knee problem until Ms. Knott filed a petition, and her refusal to select from the offered panel was not justified.

Temporary Disability Benefits DisputeMedical Treatment Authorization DisputeEmployee Non-CompliancePanel Doctor RefusalBenefit TerminationKnee Injury ClaimLumbar RadiculopathyEmployer Notice RequirementJustification for Unauthorized CareExpedited Hearing Order
References
2
Case No. ADJ7555799 (MF) ADJ7561888
Regular
Sep 08, 2017

REYNA PANIAGUA vs. T & R BANGI'S AGRICULTURAL SERVICES, INC., SEABRIGHT INSURANCE, administered by ENSTAR GROUP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a finding that her employer did not refuse to provide medical treatment. The applicant's designated Medical Provider Network (MPN) physicians were unable to treat her, leading to delays and her eventual notification that a provider was no longer accepting new patients. Despite the applicant's frustration and inability to secure treatment within the MPN, the Board affirmed the original finding. The Board concluded there was insufficient evidence that the defendant neglected or refused to provide the requested medical treatment.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider Network (MPN)Primary Treating Physician (PTP)Self-Procured TreatmentNeglect or Refusal to Provide TreatmentStipulations With Request for AwardCompromise and ReleaseExpedited HearingDeclaration of David KestnerCentral Valley Occupational Medical Group (CVO)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Reitzen v. Brooklyn Carpet Exchange

The case involves an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant who sustained a permanent partial disability from a back injury. Despite unanimous medical recommendation for a myelogram and potential surgery, the claimant refused treatment. The Board found his refusal reasonable due to 'subjective fear with a severe psychiatric overlay.' The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, arguing the refusal was unreasonable. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence that the claimant's rejection of treatment was based on more than groundless fear.

Permanent Partial DisabilityBack InjuryMedical Treatment RefusalMyelogramSurgeryPsychiatric OverlayReasonable RefusalAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityInsurance Carrier Liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wilkins v. New York Power Authority

The claimant, a lineman, sustained a shoulder injury in July 2007. Despite a diagnosis of biceps tendonitis and adhesive capsulitis, he declined prescribed medication and discontinued physical therapy, not missing work. He subsequently applied for workers’ compensation benefits based on a 45% schedule loss of use. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially denied benefits, citing the claimant's unreasonable refusal of treatment. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the refusal reasonable. However, the appellate court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence given the unanimous medical opinion that treatment was needed and claimant's refusal was unreasonable, remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Shoulder InjuryBiceps TendonitisAdhesive CapsulitisSchedule Loss of UseRefusal of Medical TreatmentUnreasonable RefusalWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. ADJ1226686 (WCK 60788)
Regular
Oct 29, 2008

CATHY BAKER vs. JAMES H. KHOE, D.D.S., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board corrected a clerical error in a prior decision, specifically changing a finding from "Defendant did unreasonably delay or refuse medical treatment" to "Defendant did *not* unreasonably delay or refuse medical treatment." This correction was made after the defendant alerted the Board to the mistake, and the Board exercised its authority to correct clerical errors at any time. Consequently, the defendant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as moot.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCLERICAL ERRORPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONLABOR CODE § 5814MEDICAL TREATMENTDELAYREFUSALDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONCORRECTINGDISMISSAL
References
1
Case No. 2017-08-1422
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2018

Moore, Mary v. Real Nurses, LLC

Mary Moore, a home health nurse for Real Nurses LLC, claimed a back injury on December 11, 2017, from turning a patient. She did not attend a scheduled workers' compensation doctor's appointment, instead seeking treatment from her own doctor. Ms. Moore also allegedly refused to sign a medical release and provide related medical records and bills. The Court denied her request for medical and temporary disability benefits, finding she was unlikely to prove a work-related injury and that her refusal of medical treatment amounted to non-compliance under Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law.

Expedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Benefits DenialWork-Related InjuryCausation DisputeNon-ComplianceRefusal of Medical TreatmentBurden of ProofHome Health Nurse InjuryBack Injury Claim
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 4,532 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