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. 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. M2009-02442-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2010

Estate of David Holt Ralston, by John A. Ralston, Personal Representative v. Fred R. Hobbs

The personal representative of David Holt Ralston's estate filed an action to rescind twelve deeds executed by Fred R. Hobbs, the decedent's attorney-in-fact, without the decedent's knowledge and for no consideration. The properties were conveyed to Hobbs, his mother, and his daughter. The personal representative alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court rescinded the conveyances for properties still owned by Hobbs and awarded monetary damages for properties transferred to innocent third parties. On appeal, Hobbs challenged the personal representative's standing, statute of limitations, the finding of fiduciary duty breach, and damage calculation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on all grounds, finding the personal representative had standing, the action was timely filed, and Hobbs breached his fiduciary duty by making unauthorized gifts not in line with the principal's gifting history.

Fiduciary DutyPower of AttorneyReal Property ConversionStatute of LimitationsDeed RescissionMonetary DamagesAppellate ReviewEstate LawUndue InfluenceAttorney-in-Fact Breach
References
32
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00289
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2022

Matter of Personal-Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc. v. City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, which denied a petition to overturn a decision by the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). The CDRB had found that Personal-Touch Home Care's claim to use unspent Medicaid funds for fiscal year 2007 to offset workers' compensation assessment expenses from 2009-2010 was foreclosed. The court agreed that the State Department of Health (DOH) rationally interpreted its regulations, concluding that these retroactive assessments, levied due to financial mismanagement of a self-insurance trust, were not

Workers' CompensationMedicaid FundsSelf-Insurance TrustFiscal YearRetroactive AssessmentAdministrative LawAgency DeferenceContract DisputeHealth Care AgenciesFinancial Mismanagement
References
4
Case No. ADJ7091667
Regular
Jan 31, 2013

THOMAS HERRERA vs. AMERI-COLD LOGISTICS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reconsidered a decision allowing the applicant to treat outside the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The Board found the employer failed to notify the applicant of his right to predesignate a personal physician as required by law. However, the remedy for this failure is limited to treatment with that specific personal physician, not any physician outside the MPN. Therefore, the original order was rescinded, and the applicant is now entitled to treatment from his identified personal physician, Dr. Aceves, provided he meets the statutory criteria, and not outside the MPN otherwise.

ADJ7091667Americo LogisticsLiberty Mutual InsuranceMedical Provider Network (MPN)Petition for Reconsiderationcumulative injurypsyche injuryinternal injuryheadachessleep disorder
References
2
Case No. 2-06-217-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2007

in the Matter of the Guardianship of Virgie Louise Parker, an Alleged Incapacitated Person

The attorney ad litem for Virgie Louise Parker appealed the trial court's decision to appoint a guardian, challenging the admission of two physician's reports and the sufficiency of evidence regarding Parker's incapacitation. The Court of Appeals, Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court found that the physician's reports by Dr. Adolphus Ray Lewis and Dr. Edward A. Luke, Jr., were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, distinguishing them from prior cases where reports were deemed untrustworthy. Furthermore, the court concluded that the jury's findings of Parker's incapacitation, the necessity of a guardian, and the protection of her rights were supported by legally and factually sufficient clear and convincing evidence, thereby overruling all of Parker's four issues.

GuardianshipIncapacitationElderly CareMedical EvidenceBusiness Records ExceptionHearsay RuleAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyDementia
References
20
Case No. 03-17-00534-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2018

Denise Stroup, as Legal Guardian of D. L. S., an Incapacitated Person v. MRM Management, Inc.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a personal injury car-crash case involving an incapacitated person, Douglas Lee Stroup (Appellant). Appellant sued Penny Harrington Taylor for negligence and MRM Management, Inc. (Appellee) for vicarious liability, alleging Taylor, a licensed real estate salesperson, was acting for MRM. Appellee's motion for summary judgment was granted, asserting Taylor was an independent contractor, thus negating vicarious liability. Appellant argues that the independent contractor agreement is void under the Texas Occupation Code, which assigns liability to brokers for their salespersons' tortious conduct. Furthermore, Appellant contends that MRM should be estopped from relying on the agreement, and that factual disputes exist regarding Taylor's employment status, joint-enterprise liability, and statutory vicarious liability under the Texas Occupations Code. Appellant seeks to reverse the trial court's order granting summary judgment, arguing sufficient evidence was presented to raise genuine issues of material fact for trial.

Personal InjuryCar CrashVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorReal Estate AgentReal Estate BrokerTexas Occupations CodeRespondeat SuperiorJoint EnterpriseSummary Judgment Appeal
References
22
Case No. 03-94-00079-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 1996

Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation v. Barbara Wasiak Tyler Turner Boulo, as Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of Stanley Wasiak, James Edwin Wingate, Sr. and Jean Wingate Homer Clifton Brownlee, Sr. and Alma Brownlee And Martha Barnes, Individually

Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation appealed a trial-court judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages to several appellees. The appellees, including Barbara Wasiak and other individuals, suffered wrongful death, personal injury, and loss of consortium due to exposure to "Kaylo," an asbestos-containing product manufactured by Owens-Corning. The case was tried under Alabama substantive law where the asbestos exposures occurred. Owens-Corning raised eleven points of error, challenging the exclusion of testimony regarding its financial condition, arguing that repetitive punitive damage awards violated due process, and contesting certain jury instructions. The appellate court found no error in the trial court's rulings and affirmed the judgment, concluding that the punitive damages were reasonable and consistent with legal objectives.

asbestos litigationproduct liabilitypunitive damagesmass tortdue process challengeAlabama lawTexas appellate procedurejury instructionswrongful deathpersonal injury
References
59
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. E2019-00554-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2020

Highlands Physicians, Inc. v. Wellmont Health System

This class action lawsuit involved Highlands Physicians, Inc. (HPI) alleging that Wellmont Health System breached an agreement and its fiduciary duties, leading to over $57 million in damages awarded by a jury. The trial court also awarded HPI over $5 million in attorney's fees, which Wellmont appealed. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in not submitting the attorney's fee issue to the jury, thus vacating that award and remanding for a jury determination. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in all other respects, including the jury's findings on breach of contract and intentional interference with business relationships. The court also affirmed the trial court's summary judgment rulings regarding contract interpretation and third-party beneficiaries, as well as the denial of prejudgment interest.

Class ActionBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyIntentional InterferenceContract InterpretationThird-Party BeneficiaryAttorney's FeesDamages AwardSummary Judgment ProcedureExpert Witness Testimony
References
91
Case No. 14-14-00855-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2014

Adeel Zaidi, A. K. Chagla, Prestige Consulting, Inc., and Apex Katy Physicians – TMG, L.L.C. v. Pankaj K. Shah and Apex Katy Physicians, LLC

This case involves an appeal from a trial court judgment that awarded over $50 million in purported fraud and related damages, including exemplary damages, against the appellants. The appellants challenge the trial court's findings and conclusions as unsupported by legally or factually sufficient evidence. They argue that the gross damage awards are unitemized and include unsupported elements, hindering adequate appellate review. Appellants contend that the trial court's conclusion of perjury by one of the appellants unfairly influenced the case outcome. They seek a reversal of the judgment and a remand for a new trial on all issues of liability and damages, highlighting alleged errors such as the improper default judgment against one appellant and adverse inferences against another due to his absence from trial.

Breach of ContractFraudFiduciary DutyCivil ConspiracyAlter EgoDamagesExemplary DamagesAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentCorporate Liability
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 6,524 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