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. 01-18-00242-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2019

Nephrology Leaders and Associates and M. Atiq Dada, MD v. American Renal Associates LLC

Nephrology Leaders and Associates and M. Atiq Dada, M.D. (collectively, "Nephrology") appealed a trial court's order that temporarily sealed certain documents from a subpoena issued to American Renal Associates, LLC. Nephrology argued the trial court abused its discretion by setting the motion for a hearing sua sponte and that evidence was insufficient to support the order. American Renal countered that Nephrology lacked standing to appeal. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas agreed, concluding that Nephrology had not demonstrated a redressable injury, which is a constitutional prerequisite for standing in Texas. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, affirming that statutory provisions cannot enlarge constitutional jurisdiction.

Appellate ProcedureSubject Matter JurisdictionStandingSealing OrderTemporary SealingDiscovery SubpoenaAbuse of DiscretionTrial Court OrderConstitutional StandingJudicial Review
References
27
Case No. 07-CV-2634; 07-CV-4841
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2010

Price v. Reilly

Plaintiff Anthony Price, a pro se inmate, alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs at Nassau County Correctional Center, violating his Eighth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Price claimed incorrect medication dosage for renal disease, failure to be tested for a kidney transplant, and inadequate treatment for shoulder pain against Sheriff Edward Reilly, Kim Edwards, Perry Intal, Mary Sullivan, Dr. Benjamin Okonta, and Nassau University Medical Center. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the medication dosage and all claims against Sheriff Reilly. However, the motion was denied concerning the kidney transplant request and shoulder pain claims, as genuine issues of material fact remained. The court also addressed the exhaustion of administrative remedies, finding defendants failed to establish plaintiff's non-exhaustion for the kidney transplant claim.

Eighth AmendmentDeliberate IndifferenceMedical NeedsPrisoner RightsSummary JudgmentKidney DiseaseRenal FailureDialysisShoulder PainInmate Grievance
References
70
Case No. 03-16-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2016

Steve F. Montoya, Jr., M.D., West Texas Renal Care and West Texas Nephrology v. San Angelo Community Medical Center and Kirk Brewer, M.D.

Appellants, Steve F. Montoya, Jr., M.D., and his entities, appealed the dismissal of their claims against Kirk Brewer, M.D. and the summary judgment granted to San Angelo Community Medical Center (SACMC). Dr. Montoya alleged that Dr. Brewer, as Chief of Staff and head of a hospitalist group, conspired with SACMC to engage in anticompetitive actions, including a "whisper campaign" and manipulating patient referrals from the emergency room to favor hospital-affiliated physicians, thereby harming Dr. Montoya's nephrology practice. The lower court dismissed claims against Dr. Brewer under the Texas Citizens Participation Act and Rule 91a, subsequently granting summary judgment to SACMC. Appellants argue these dismissals were erroneous, asserting their claims are valid under Texas antitrust laws, they presented clear and specific evidence, SACMC has direct liability, and the court failed to consider their updated pleadings. Dr. Montoya seeks to reverse the dismissals, citing significant lost revenue estimated between $3,000,000 and $6,500,000 from lost long-term kidney dialysis patients.

AntitrustBusiness DisparagementDefamationTortious InterferenceMonopolizationGroup BoycottEMTALAPatient ReferralsHospitalist ServicesPhysician Privileges
References
49
Case No. 14-07-00925-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2009

Latoya Basey v. Davita Inc., D/B/A Total Renal Care, Nelda Boatwright and Fresenius Medical Care Holding Inc., D/B/A Fresenius Medical Care North America D/B/A Northwest Houston Dialysis, and Biomedical Applications of Texas, Inc.

Latoya Basey appealed a take-nothing summary judgment in a disability discrimination and tort case against her former employer, DaVita, Inc., and potential employer, Fresenius Medical Care Holding, Inc. Basey claimed DaVita fired her after a work-related back injury and that Fresenius refused to hire her due to her injury and prior discrimination charge. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying grounds. The appellate court affirmed, finding Basey failed to provide evidence of disability for her discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims, and lacked evidence of causation for her retaliation claims.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationEmployment LawCausal LinkTexas Court of AppealsADAFailure to AccommodateEmployment Termination
References
11
Case No. 2017-08-0964
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2018

Jefferson, Willie v. Solae, LLC

Willie Jefferson, an employee of Solae, LLC, filed a Petition for Benefit Determination seeking workers' compensation benefits for end-stage renal disease, which he attributed to soy protein exposure during his employment. An Expedited Hearing was held to assess his likelihood of prevailing on the merits. The Court determined that Mr. Jefferson failed to present sufficient medical evidence to establish a causal link between his work and his condition. Multiple physicians consistently indicated the cause of his renal failure was unknown or explicitly stated it was not work-related. Consequently, the Court denied his request for medical and temporary disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationEnd-Stage Renal DiseaseOccupational ExposureMedical CausationExpedited HearingBurden of ProofMedical EvidenceRenal InsufficiencyDialysisSoy Protein
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06054
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2019

Wilder v. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc.

Plaintiff Nicholas Wilder, suffering from end-stage renal disorder, sued Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Avantus Renal Therapy New York LLC, after they notified him that his dialysis care would be terminated due to disruptive behavior. Wilder sought an injunction to prevent the termination of his life-sustaining dialysis treatment. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied his request for an injunction and vacated a previously granted temporary restraining order (TRO). The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's order, reversing the denial of the injunction and vacating of the TRO, reinstating the TRO pending a hearing on Wilder's injunction request. The appellate court found that the motion court abused its discretion by vacating the TRO and not holding a hearing on the preliminary injunction, given the substantial factual disputes regarding Wilder's behavior and the defendants' compliance with federal regulations for patient discharge. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Wilder's request to proceed anonymously and seal records.

Dialysis TreatmentPatient DischargeTemporary Restraining OrderPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable HarmDisruptive Patient BehaviorFederal RegulationsRight to CareAppellate ReviewSealing Records
References
6
Case No. W2023-01693-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2025

Saint Claude Renal v. Drexel Chemical Company

This appellate case concerns an appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County regarding a product liability claim. Plaintiffs, 165 workers from the Dominican Republic, sued Drexel Chemical Company, a Tennessee corporation, under the Tennessee Products Liability Act (TPLA) for alleged injuries caused by toxic herbicides. The trial court dismissed the case, concluding that the TPLA does not have extraterritorial application. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that the TPLA does not purport to apply extraterritorially, therefore affirming the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action.

Product liabilityExtraterritorial applicationTennessee Products Liability Act (TPLA)Choice of lawPresumption against extraterritorialityToxic herbicidesDominican RepublicShelby CountyCourt of AppealsDismissal affirmed
References
53
Case No. ADJ10465483
Regular
Oct 31, 2018

SONIA IBANEZ JIMENEZ (Dec'd) vs. DVA RENAL HEALTHCARE, INC. DAVITA DIALYSIS, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by an unnamed petitioner concerning the death of Sonia Ibanez Jimenez. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate such prejudice or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ reportExtraordinary RemedyADJ10465483DVA Renal HealthcareDavita Dialysis
References
2
Case No. ADJ6801375
Regular
Jul 13, 2010

MICHAEL DAVID HERNANDEZ vs. VINCE'S ITALIAN TO GO, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award. The WCAB found that the applicant was not entitled to medical treatment outside the employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN) for a meniscus transplant or graft. The applicant failed to follow the required procedures for obtaining a second and third opinion within the MPN before seeking treatment from an out-of-network physician. Therefore, the WCAB concluded there was no showing that treatment outside the MPN was justified under the relevant rules.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPNFurther Medical TreatmentSports Medicine DoctorMedical Meniscus TransplantGraft ProcedureDr. Patrick O'MearaDr. John DeSantisSubspecialist
References
2
Case No. ADJ376655 (SJO 0257571)
Regular
Dec 26, 2014

JORDAN STONE vs. ACHIEVE KID.; CAPS-SIG

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board reversed a prior decision denying an employer's appeal of an Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination. The Board found the IMR determination for a knee cartilage transplant was plainly erroneous and acted in excess of the Administrative Director's powers. This was due to a direct contradiction between the IMR's finding of medical necessity and its stated rationale. Consequently, the Board granted the employer's appeal and remanded the case for a new IMR review by a different reviewer.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical Review (IMR)Utilization Review (UR)Labor Code section 4610.6(h)Plainly erroneous findingsExpert opinionMedical necessityCartilage transplantRight kneeRemand
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 33 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