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. 03-14-00717-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2014

Vivek Goswami, M.D. and Austin Heart, PLLC v. Nancy Jo Rodriguez

Nancy Jo Rodriguez filed a health care liability claim against Vivek Goswami, M.D., and Austin Heart, PLLC, alleging negligence related to her continued use of the drug Pradaxa. Rodriguez claims that despite an order from Dr. David Kessler to discontinue Pradaxa, Dr. Goswami failed to follow this order, and nurses/staff at Austin Heart authorized refills. This, she alleges, led to her hospitalization. Appellants objected to the expert report by Dr. Jeffrey A. Breall, arguing it was conclusory, lacked factual support, and failed to adequately define the standard of care, breach, and causation for each appellant. The trial court denied Appellants' motion to dismiss, finding Dr. Breall's report adequate. Appellants are appealing this denial, contending the trial court abused its discretion as the report did not constitute a good-faith effort to comply with Chapter 74 requirements, effectively negating its purpose by concealing facts and offering vague conclusions.

Medical MalpracticeExpert Report AdequacyTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAbuse of DiscretionStandard of CareBreach of DutyCausationConclusory Expert OpinionsMotion to DismissPradaxa Medication
References
24
Case No. 03-02-00196-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2003

Heart Hospital IV, L.P. and Texas Workforce Commission v. Charles A. King

Charles A. King, an employee of Heart Hospital IV, L.P., was denied unemployment benefits by the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) after failing a drug test. King sought judicial review, initially filing in Travis County and later refiling in Bastrop County, 125 days after the TWC's final decision. Heart Hospital and TWC challenged the refiling, arguing King missed the 14-day statutory deadline for judicial review. The district court denied TWC's plea to the jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the 14-day deadline in the labor code is a jurisdictional prerequisite, making the sixty-day tolling provision of section 16.064 and equitable tolling inapplicable. Consequently, the district court lacked jurisdiction, and the cause was dismissed.

Unemployment BenefitsJurisdictional PrerequisiteStatutory DeadlinesJudicial ReviewTexas Labor CodePlea to JurisdictionTolling ProvisionsEquitable TollingCourt of AppealsAdministrative Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bullock v. American Heart Ass'n

Carole Bullock was discharged from her employment with the American Heart Association (AHA) and entered into a separation agreement. AHA mistakenly overpaid Bullock, who then refused to return the funds, alleging unlawful employment practices and demanding more money. AHA sued to recover the overpayments. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of AHA on most issues and awarded attorney's fees. Bullock appealed, contending the trial court erred in granting summary judgment, enforcing a jury waiver, and quashing subpoenas. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Bullock's arguments were without merit.

Breach of Separation AgreementSummary JudgmentJury Waiver EnforcementApex DepositionEmployment DisputeOverpayment RecoveryAttorney's FeesAppellate ProcedureWaiver of ClaimsAge Discrimination Claims
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bauer v. Female Academy of the Sacred Heart

This case concerns Keith Bauer, a window cleaner, who was severely injured after falling from a third-story window while working for Environmental Service Systems at the Female Academy of the Sacred Heart. The accident occurred due to a safety hook becoming stuck on a square anchor, which violated Industrial Code standards. The primary legal issues were whether claims under Labor Law § 202 and Labor Law § 240 (1) could coexist, and if Labor Law § 202 imposed strict liability or comparative negligence. The Court of Appeals held that both Labor Law claims can be pursued simultaneously and determined that Labor Law § 202 is a comparative negligence statute, not a strict liability one. The court modified previous rulings by reinstating the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim for further proceedings, while affirming the comparative negligence approach for the Labor Law § 202 claim.

Window Cleaner InjuryLabor LawStrict LiabilityComparative NegligenceSafety AnchorsIndustrial Code ViolationConstruction SafetyThird-Party ActionStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart, Inc. v. Dowling

This nonpayment proceeding addresses respondents Robert and Jessica Dowling's motion to dismiss, alleging petitioner Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart, Inc. failed to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The court examined whether the rent demand and the petition constituted 'communications' under the FDCPA, ultimately concluding they did not violate the Act's provisions in this context. Furthermore, the court determined that even if an FDCPA violation occurred, it would not serve as a defense to the underlying eviction proceeding. The decision also rejected the argument that state law (RPAPL) is preempted by federal FDCPA, finding that the two can be reconciled. Consequently, the court denied the respondents' motion to dismiss in its entirety.

FDCPADebt CollectionNonpayment ProceedingRent DemandMotion to DismissStatutory PenaltiesPreemption DoctrineCreditor-Debtor RelationsSummary EvictionFormal Pleadings
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mason v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Charlie Mason, a 53-year-old truck driver, died of a heart attack while working a night shift in freezing weather. His widow filed a worker's compensation claim, asserting the heart attack was an occupational disease or an accidental injury resulting from his strenuous work conditions and long hours. The jury determined Mason had a heart attack but found it did not occur in the course of his employment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's 'take nothing' judgment, finding no error in the jury instructions regarding the definition of 'occupational disease' or the refusal to include a specific definition of 'accidental injury'.

Worker's CompensationHeart AttackOccupational DiseaseCourse of EmploymentJury InstructionsAccidental InjuryAppellate ReviewCausationTexas LawTruck Driver
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Dickie

This worker's compensation case concerns James Rhabb Dickie, an appellee, who suffered a heart attack while working as a carpenter. He sued for total and permanent disability benefits and medical expenses, claiming the heart attack was work-related. The appellant, Western Casualty and Surety Co., appealed the trial court's judgment, arguing insufficient evidence of 'strain, overexertion, or shock' and a defective jury charge. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding adequate evidence that Dickie's physically taxing work and the work environment causally contributed to his heart attack, and that the jury instruction on causation was proper.

Worker's CompensationHeart AttackOccupational InjuryDisability BenefitsMedical ExpensesCausationStrainOverexertionJury VerdictAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heart Hospital IV, L.P. v. King

Charles A. King, an employee of Heart Hospital IV, L.P., was fired after failing a drug test and subsequently applied for unemployment benefits with the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). The TWC initially approved King's benefits but later reversed its decision, denying benefits and ordering repayment. King sought judicial review, first in Travis County and then refiling in Bastrop County, missing the statutory 14-day deadline for filing. Both the TWC and Heart Hospital filed pleas to the jurisdiction, asserting that King's failure to adhere to the deadline deprived the court of jurisdiction. The appellate court reversed the district court's denial of the TWC's plea, ruling that the 14-day filing deadline is a jurisdictional prerequisite and that King's non-compliance meant the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

Unemployment BenefitsJurisdictional PrerequisiteStatutory DeadlineJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawPlea to the JurisdictionEquitable TollingTexas Labor CodeTravis CountyBastrop County
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 1975

Claim of Alperin v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

The claimant, on March 12, 1971, experienced acute heart failure or insufficiency due to excessive work effort, aggravating a pre-existing heart defect caused by a damaged aortic valve. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that a subsequent operation to replace the defective aortic valve and its sequelae were causally related to this work activity. Appellants contested this finding, arguing a lack of substantial evidence. However, the record contained unequivocal medical testimony confirming that the specific work effort caused the condition to become symptomatic, necessitating the operation to alleviate symptoms. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding a clear causal link.

Heart ConditionWork-Related InjuryCausationAortic Valve ReplacementMedical TestimonyPre-existing ConditionWorkers' Compensation AppealSurgical NecessityAggravation of Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 1999

Bauer v. Female Academy of Sacred Heart

Plaintiff, an employee of ESS, sustained serious injuries after falling while cleaning windows of a building owned by the defendant. Plaintiff commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 202, and 240 (1). After an earlier appeal dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, the case proceeded to trial on the Labor Law § 202 claim. The Supreme Court instructed the jury that defendant and ESS were liable due to a breach of their statutory duty under Labor Law § 202, considering it an absolute liability statute and not allowing comparative fault. The jury returned a verdict of $3,351,933 in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant and ESS appealed, contending that Labor Law § 202, as amended in 1970, does not impose absolute liability but rather a violation of regulations under it constitutes some evidence of negligence, thus comparative negligence should apply. The appellate court agreed with the defendant and ESS, holding that a violation of Industrial Board regulations pursuant to the 1970 amendment to Labor Law § 202 is only some evidence of negligence, and therefore, comparative negligence should be considered by the jury.

Window Cleaning AccidentLabor LawAbsolute LiabilityComparative NegligenceStatutory DutyIndustrial Board of AppealsWorker SafetyJudgment AppealThird-Party ActionCommon-Law Negligence
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 488 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