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. 04-09-00148-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2009

Central Texas Orthopedic Products, Inc. v. Andrew Espinoza and Howmedica Osteronics Corp. D/B/A Stryker Orthopedics

Central Texas Orthopedic Products, Inc. (CTOP) sued Andrew Espinoza for breach of contract and fiduciary duty, and Howmedica Osteonics Corp. d/b/a Stryker Orthopedics (Stryker) for tortious interference. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Espinoza and Stryker, and a jury found Espinoza breached fiduciary duty but awarded no damages. On appeal, CTOP challenged the summary judgments and attorney's fees awarded to Espinoza. The appellate court found the trial court erred in applying the unclean hands doctrine to CTOP's claims as the alleged misconduct was separate from the disputed contract. The court also found a genuine issue of material fact regarding Espinoza's entitlement to compensation due to his alleged breach of fiduciary duty. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Breach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyTortious InterferenceSummary JudgmentUnclean Hands DoctrineNon-Compete AgreementCompensation AgreementTexas Payday ActAppellate ReviewReversed and Remanded
References
15
Case No. 13-13-00552-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2015

Nolana Open MRI Center, Inc. v. Guillermo R. Pechero M.D.Ruben D. Pechero M.D. Maplestar Orthopedics, P. A.

Nolana Open MRI Center, Inc. appealed a judgment rendered against it following a bench trial. The appellees, Guillermo R. Pechero, M.D., Ruben D. Pechero, M.D., and Maplestar Orthopedics, P.A., filed a motion to show authority, contending Nolana's counsel lacked the authority to bring the appeal. The underlying dispute involved the sale of Nolana's assets, patient referrals, lease agreements, and counterclaims for fraudulent inducement, conversion, and breach of contract. A key issue was a 50-50 ownership split in Nolana between Jose Castro and Agustin Garcia, where Castro had settled with defendants and granted them limited power of attorney to oppose litigation, while Garcia sought to authorize the appeal. The Court of Appeals, reviewing the trial court's findings, concluded that Nolana's counsel lacked standing due to the unresolved ownership conflict regarding the authority to initiate the appeal.

Appellate ProcedureJurisdictionMotion to Show AuthorityCorporate AuthorityShareholder DisputeLimited Power of AttorneyBreach of ContractTheft Liability ActFraudulent InducementTortious Interference
References
30
Case No. ADJ2434971 (OAK 0238163)
Regular
Dec 02, 2010

ANA RODRIGUEZ vs. SHERATON PALACE HOTEL, TOKIO MARINE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a finding that the applicant, Ana Rodriguez, did not sustain new and further permanent disability subsequent to a 1997 stipulated award. The judge found her testimony regarding increased orthopedic and psychiatric symptoms to be not credible. Medical evidence from Dr. Edington indicated no orthopedic increase in disability since the award, and the psychiatric disability became permanent and stationary concurrently with the orthopedic condition. Therefore, the judge concluded there was no "new and further" disability as defined by Labor Code Section 5410.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedCredibility FindingGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Stipulated AwardPetition to ReopenNew and Further DisabilityOrthopedic DisabilityPsychiatric Disability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. North Shore Orthopedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, P.C.

Frank Fernandez, an x-ray technician, sued his former employer, North Shore Orthopedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, P.C., for retaliation under Title VII after filing a national origin discrimination complaint. A jury found in favor of Fernandez, awarding back pay, front pay, and punitive damages. North Shore subsequently moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and to modify the damage awards. The court denied North Shore's motions for judgment and a new trial, affirmed the jury's back pay award, but vacated and reduced the front pay award from $160,000 to $50,000, and the punitive damages award from $100,000 to $50,000.

RetaliationTitle VIIEmployment DiscriminationBack PayFront PayPunitive DamagesMitigation of DamagesFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial DiscretionEquitable Relief
References
27
Case No. 01-22-00613-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2024

ROC- Houston, P.A. D/B/A Reconstructive Orthopedic Center of Houston and ROC ASC, LLP v. Dushi Parameswaran, M.D.

This case involves an appeal from a breach of contract dispute concerning an employment agreement and a loan agreement. Dr. Dushi Parameswaran sued his former employer, ROC-Houston, P.A. (the P.A.), and ROC ASC, LLP (ASC), alleging breach of contract for unpaid compensation and non-payment under a loan agreement, respectively. A jury found in favor of Parameswaran on both claims. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas concluded that the employment agreement was unambiguous and did not support the jury's award for Parameswaran, thus reversing that part of the judgment and rendering a take-nothing judgment against him on the employment claim. Regarding the loan agreement, the court found it unambiguous but affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Parameswaran, concluding that the trial court's error in submitting the ambiguity to the jury was harmless as the jury's finding was consistent with the court's interpretation. The case was remanded for reassessment of attorney's fees related to the employment agreement.

Breach of ContractEmployment AgreementLoan AgreementContract InterpretationAmbiguityLegal SufficiencyJNOVAppellate ReviewCompensation DisputeAttorney's Fees
References
31
Case No. 2015-08-0106
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2015

McIntosh, Sarah v. Randstad

Sarah Kaye Mcintosh, an employee of Randstad, sought an expedited hearing after experiencing carpal tunnel symptoms from extensive filing work and subsequent denial of her workers' compensation claim by ESIS. The Workers' Compensation Judge, Jim Umsted, found Ms. Mcintosh credible and determined she would likely prevail on the merits. The court ordered Randstad to provide a panel of orthopedic surgeons for treatment and to pay temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits at a weekly rate of $355.63 from April 11, 2015, until she reaches maximum medical improvement or can return to work at an equivalent wage. The case is set for an Initial Hearing on September 16, 2015.

Expedited HearingCarpal Tunnel SyndromeOccupational DiseaseTemporary Partial DisabilityMedical BenefitsNotice DefenseCausationBurden of ProofTennessee LawEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. 2020-06-0978
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2021

Wolfe, Barbara v. Chick-Fil-A

Barbara Wolfe, an employee of Chick-Fil-A, sought medical treatment after a work-related fall in February 2020. Her chosen physician, Dr. Charles Kaelin, an orthopedic surgeon, concluded that her current symptoms were not related to the fall but rather to preexisting degenerative conditions, a conclusion supported by MRIs. Despite Ms. Wolfe's testimony and coworker affidavits asserting she had no prior pain, the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims at Nashville denied her request for an independent physician. The court ruled that Ms. Wolfe failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish a causal link between her fall and current pain, thus failing to overcome the presumption of correctness given to Dr. Kaelin’s medical opinion.

CausationPreexisting ConditionMedical EvidenceExpedited HearingDenial of ReliefOrthopedic SurgeonMRI FindingsEmployee TestimonyChiropractorWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
3
Case No. 527544
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2019

Matter of Nicholson v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.

Maria Nicholson, an administrative assistant, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her claim for benefits related to right arm and neck injuries from repetitive use. The Board affirmed the disallowance, citing insufficient medical evidence to establish a causal link between her job duties and the claimed occupational disease. An orthopedic surgeon, Jeffrey Passick, who conducted an independent medical examination, could not definitively confirm an occupational disease. The claimant's treating physician, Michael Hearns, provided inconsistent testimony regarding the onset of symptoms and claimant's work history. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board was justified in rejecting the medical evidence due to its inconclusive nature and inconsistencies.

Workers' Compensation LawOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Stress InjuryCausationMedical Expert TestimonySufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative AssistantNeck InjuryArm Injury
References
8
Case No. 2019-05-1059
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2020

Carter, Paulette v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

Paulette Carter, an employee, sought additional medical and temporary disability benefits following a work injury at Frito-Lay, Inc. in June 2019, where boxes fell on her causing a right shoulder injury. Despite treatments by authorized physicians, Dr. Troy Layton (orthopedic specialist) and Dr. Hazlewood (physiatrist), her current symptoms were not deemed primarily work-related, and no further surgery was recommended. The Court denied Ms. Carter's claims for additional benefits, concluding she failed to establish a primary causal connection between her work injury and her ongoing conditions. Additionally, the Court noted Frito-Lay's failure to provide a timely panel for a physiatrist referral and consequently referred the case to the Compliance Program for investigation.

Workers' Compensation LawExpedited HearingMedical Benefits DenialTemporary Disability BenefitsShoulder InjuryRotator Cuff TearImpingement SyndromeMedical CausationPhysician PanelEmployer Compliance
References
6
Case No. CV-25-0026
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of Robert William Hummer

Claimant Robert William Hummer sustained a lower back injury in May 2022 while working for Riccelli Enterprises, Inc. The employer and its carrier controverted the claim, arguing the symptoms were from a prior 2017 injury. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a work-related injury, but later reversed this finding after an independent medical examination suggested the 2022 injuries had resolved. The Workers' Compensation Board (Board) disagreed, finding a causally-related marked partial disability. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to the Board's authority to resolve conflicting medical opinions, specifically crediting the nurse practitioner's testimony that the ongoing disability stemmed from the 2022 accident over the orthopedic surgeon's assessment.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryCausationMedical EvidenceConflicting Medical OpinionsIndependent Medical ExaminationNurse Practitioner TestimonyAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDisability
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 896 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