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. 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
Case No. 533089
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2021

Matter of Barden v. General Physicians PC

Claimant, a patient services representative, sought to amend her workers' compensation claim to include left shoulder aggravation after a work-related injury to her right shoulder. The Workers' Compensation Board disallowed this request, finding that claimant failed to provide sufficient credible medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between her employment and the left shoulder condition. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The court noted that the claimant's treating physician opined the left shoulder pathology was largely preexisting and unrelated to the work injury, and other medical opinions either lacked sufficient weight or were based on inaccurate information, providing no basis to disturb the Board's finding.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryCausationMedical EvidencePreexisting ConditionAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionClaim AmendmentPatient Services Representative
References
10
Case No. 2-07-174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2008

Cairn K. Baker v. Cook Children's Physician Network

Cairn K. Baker appealed a take-nothing summary judgment granted in favor of Cook Children’s Physician Network, which was based on the exclusivity provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Baker, a licensed vocational nurse, alleged mental trauma damages for assault and false imprisonment by Dr. Shannon Watts during a personnel action meeting. The Court of Appeals determined that Baker's claims, seeking mental trauma damages arising principally from a personnel action, are noncompensable under the Act, and thus the exclusivity provision does not bar them. Alternatively, even if not classified as mental trauma injuries, the claims for intentional torts are also not barred by the Act. Therefore, the court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation ActExclusivity provisionSummary JudgmentMental anguish damagesAssaultFalse ImprisonmentIntentional tortsPersonnel actionNoncompensable injuryAppellate review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1988

De Coste v. Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital

Decedent, Darwin A. De Coste, experienced chest pain and elevated blood pressure, leading him to Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital where he was seen by Dr. William Amsterlaw. Amsterlaw diagnosed reflux esophagitis despite an abnormal electrocardiogram, discharging De Coste, who subsequently suffered a fatal cardiopulmonary arrest 12 hours later. The administrator of De Coste's estate filed a wrongful death action, alleging medical malpractice and that the misdiagnosis was the proximate cause of death. A jury awarded pecuniary damages and funeral expenses, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, finding rational support for the jury's malpractice finding and rejecting the defendants' argument to reduce the award by Social Security benefits due to the effective date of CPLR 4545 (c).

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseCollateral Source RuleCPLR 4545Jury VerdictEmergency Room CareMisdiagnosisArteriosclerosisMyocardial Infarction
References
3
Case No. 2015-01-0281
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2018

Tucker, David E. v. Star Transportation

David Tucker, an employee of Star Transportation, sought to change his treating physician for a shoulder injury sustained on July 1, 2015. He expressed a loss of confidence in Dr. Mejia due to perceived ineffectual treatment, improper impairment assessment methodology, and the physician's refusal to complete a Physician Certification Form. The Court, citing precedents like Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions and Baker v. Electrolux, found no legal basis to compel the employer to provide a new panel of physicians. The Court ruled that Mr. Tucker's subjective dissatisfaction and the alleged inadequacies of Dr. Mejia did not warrant a change in treating physician.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryTreating PhysicianMedical TreatmentImpairment RatingAMA GuidesTennessee LawRight to Control Medical TreatmentPhysician Certification FormMMI (Maximum Medical Improvement)
References
3
Case No. 03-96-00624-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 1997

Rhonda Cramer McClure v. Dr. Henry Landis and Interim Physicians, Inc.

Rhonda Cramer McClure appealed the dismissal of her medical-malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Henry Landis and Interim Physicians, Inc. The trial court dismissed her case with prejudice because she failed to provide a required expert report within 180 days, as mandated by the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act. McClure's attorney contended that this omission was an accident or mistake, qualifying her for a 30-day grace period under the Act, and promptly provided the report upon realizing the error. The appellate court found that the trial judge abused its discretion by denying McClure's motion for a new trial, as the defendants did not sufficiently controvert the evidence presented by McClure regarding the accidental nature of the failure to file. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Medical MalpracticeExpert ReportMedical Liability and Insurance Improvement ActDismissal with PrejudiceMotion for New TrialAccident or MistakeConscious IndifferenceTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureTexas Rules of Civil EvidenceAbuse of Discretion
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Billy Overstreet v. TRW Commercial Steering Division

This concurring opinion by Judge William C. Koch, Jr. addresses the legal basis for prohibiting ex parte communications between an employer's counsel and an employee's treating physician in a Workers' Compensation Act claim. While the Court's main conclusion relies on an implied-in-law contract theory, Judge Koch advocates for a fiduciary duty stemming from the physician-patient relationship. He clarifies that physicians have a duty of non-disclosure, subject to statutory exceptions for workers' compensation reports, but these exceptions do not permit ex parte communications. The opinion asserts that employees retain their medical privacy unless explicitly altered by law.

Physician-patient privilegeConfidentialityEx parte communicationWorkers' CompensationFiduciary dutyImplied contractMedical records disclosureHIPAALegal ethicsPatient rights
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 2,711 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