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. 14-13-00938-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2014

Carolyn Warrick v. Motiva Enterprises, L.L.C

Carolyn Warrick, an employee of Motiva Enterprises, L.L.C., appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Motiva. Warrick alleged disparate treatment based on race and perceived disability, and retaliation after complaining about the treatment. Her complaints included allegations of a white male co-worker receiving preferential treatment regarding work hours and Motiva's response to her medical condition and alleged workplace bullying. Motiva filed a hybrid traditional and no-evidence summary judgment motion, contending Warrick lacked evidence of a similarly situated co-worker, an adverse employment action, Motiva perceiving her as disabled, or engaging in protected activity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Warrick failed to produce sufficient evidence of an adverse employment action for her discrimination claims and that her January 16 e-mail did not constitute a protected activity under the TCHRA for her retaliation claim.

DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionProtected ActivityTexas Labor CodeTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities ActAppellate ReviewPrima Facie Case
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2004

Mete v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation

This class action alleged age discrimination in employment against the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities (OMRDD). Plaintiffs, former Chiefs of Developmental Center Treatment Services, claimed disparate treatment and disparate impact arising from a 1989 reduction in force (RIF) that eliminated their positions. All 46 Chiefs, who were over 40, were either demoted or retired, and statistical evidence showed a disproportionate impact on employees over 40. The Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all causes of action. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while plaintiffs established a prima facie case, OMRDD provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the RIF (economic conditions and long-standing concerns about the position's utility), which plaintiffs failed to adequately prove was a pretext for discrimination.

Age DiscriminationClass ActionSummary JudgmentDisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactReduction in ForceEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie CaseStatistical Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Evevsky v. Liberty Mutual Group

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant's unauthorized medical treatment. The claimant, who sustained neck and shoulder injuries in 1993, had her case reopened in 2001 after the employer's carrier objected to her request for authorized massage therapy. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board determined that the treatment was not authorized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-b, as the massage therapist was not Board-authorized nor supervised by an authorized physician. The appellate court reviewed the Board's decision, affirming that there was no legal basis to overturn the finding. The court also considered and dismissed the claimant's constitutional arguments as being without merit.

Workers' CompensationMedical TreatmentMassage TherapyAuthorizationBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPhysician SupervisionConstitutionalityPermanent Partial Disability
References
3
Case No. ADJ9822757; ADJ9826854
Regular
Dec 07, 2016

MIREYA CASILLAS vs. CVS PHARMACY, INC., NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Appeals Board denied Mireya Casillas's Petition for Removal because she failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm required for this extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's report, incorporated by the Board, found that the defendants' 24-day delay in authorizing MPN treatment did not constitute a denial of care that would permit treatment outside the MPN, especially since authorization was eventually provided before the applicant designated a non-MPN physician. The Board concluded that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy for any potential adverse decision. Therefore, removal was denied.

RemovalPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPNDenial of CarePrimary Treating PhysicianAuthorizationPrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
3
Case No. VNO 400907, VNO 400906
Regular
Jan 24, 2008

JORGE ESCOBEDO vs. WESTLAKE INN RESTAURANT & HOTEL, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, SIERRA INSURANCE GROUP

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves applicant Jorge Escobedo seeking benefits for injuries presumed compensable under Labor Code section 5402. The Appeals Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) decision, finding that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of injury and that applicant's injuries did not require further medical treatment or result in temporary disability, largely based on the WCJ's adverse credibility finding. A dissenting opinion argued that the WCJ's findings on no treatment or disability improperly abrogated the 5402 presumption and suggested appointing a "regular physician" to resolve conflicting medical opinions.

ReconsiderationRebuttable presumptionCompensabilityLabor Code 5402Medical treatmentTemporary disabilityPermanent disabilityApportionmentAttorney's feesSubstantial evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thompson v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

Plaintiffs, three African-American crane operators, sued ExxonMobil for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. They alleged disparate treatment after being subjected to drug testing and disciplinary counseling following a crane accident caused by human error, claiming Caucasian contractors involved in a separate incident were treated more favorably. The court granted ExxonMobil's motion for summary judgment, determining that the drug testing and counseling did not constitute an actionable adverse employment action. Furthermore, the court found that the comparator incidents were not 'nearly identical' due to different crews, supervisors, and causation findings, thus precluding a prima facie case of disparate treatment or retaliation.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISection 1981Summary JudgmentEmployment LawDisparate TreatmentAdverse Employment ActionHuman ErrorDrug Testing
References
118
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Camp v. Harris Methodist Fort Worth Hospital

Appellants (Leslie Camp, et al.) appealed an adverse judgment on their claims under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) against Harris Methodist Fort Worth Hospital. Karen Camp presented at the hospital emergency room with severe shoulder pain and anemia, and after examination, was discharged with instructions for a follow-up appointment. Karen died the next day, with conflicting medical opinions regarding the cause of death. The jury found that although Karen had an emergency medical condition upon discharge, the Hospital had not actually determined this, nor failed to provide necessary stabilization treatment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and no abuse of discretion in excluding a DHHS investigative report.

EMTALAMedical MalpracticeEmergency Medical ConditionHospital LiabilityJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyEvidence ExclusionDHHS Report
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 3,914 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