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. 03-05-00032-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2007

Board of Medical Examiners for the State of Texas and Donald W. Patrick, M.D., J.D., as Executive Director of the Board of Medical Examiners for the State of Texas v. Vivian Adaobi O. Nzedu, M.D.

The Texas State Board of Medical Examiners denied Dr. Vivian Nzedu's medical license application, citing her failure to pass the USMLE within the statutorily permitted attempts. The Board included an examination attempt made prior to the effective date of the 'three-attempts statute' (September 1, 1993). The trial court initially sided with Dr. Nzedu, ruling that pre-1993 attempts should not be counted. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that counting pre-statute examination attempts is not an unconstitutional retroactive application of the Medical Practice Act, as it merely draws upon antecedent facts and does not impair a vested right. The court deferred to the Board's reasonable interpretation of the statute. The case was remanded for a determination of attorneys' fees.

Medical LicensingUSMLEStatutory InterpretationRetroactivityVested RightsAdministrative LawTexas Medical Practice ActPhysician LicensureExamination RequirementsAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. 03-10-00160-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2010

William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation Frank S. Denton v. Reema Khan, D/B/A Salon Rupa - Shapes Brow Bar

This appeal concerns district court orders that partially denied a plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The appellants, governmental defendants including the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and its executive director and members, faced claims from appellee Reema Khan, who operates eyebrow threading businesses. Khan was penalized for practicing cosmetology without a license and challenged this, arguing eyebrow threading is not within the statutory scope of cosmetology. The appellate court reversed the district court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction for Khan's declaratory claims, dismissing them as redundant to her Administrative Procedures Act (APA) judicial review claim. However, the court affirmed the temporary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion given Khan's viable APA claim and probable right to recovery against the Department's regulation of eyebrow threading.

Cosmetology RegulationEyebrow ThreadingAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgments ActPlea to JurisdictionTemporary InjunctionStatutory InterpretationProfessional LicensingGovernmental AuthorityUltra Vires Act
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 1967

Holloway v. Board of Examiners

The petitioner, a school social worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to compel the respondent to provide copies of medical and other reports that led to an unsatisfactory rating in an examination for a Supervisor of School Social Workers license. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially dismissed the petition. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, granting the petition to the extent of directing the respondent to furnish the reports to a physician designated by the petitioner, rather than directly to the petitioner. The case was remanded to the Special Term for further proceedings, including a determination on allowing the petitioner more time to appeal the unsatisfactory rating.

Article 78 CPLRLicense ExaminationSchool Social WorkerMedical ReportsDisclosureAdministrative AppealUnsatisfactory RatingAppellate ReversalRemandPhysician Disclosure
References
3
Case No. 15-25-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2025

Texas State Board of Social Worker Examiners v. Katherin Youniacutt and Tammy Thompson

This reply brief argues for the dismissal of claims against the Texas State Board of Social Worker Examiners. The appellants contend that the plaintiffs failed to establish a protected liberty interest in becoming licensed health care workers, distinguishing the case from Patel v. Texas Department of Licensing & Regulation. They assert that Texas Occupations Code section 108.052, which bars individuals with violent felony convictions from health care licenses, is rationally related to protecting public safety and is not an unconstitutional burden. Furthermore, appellants argue that the legislative process itself provided adequate procedural due course, negating the need for individual hearings. The brief also dismisses equal rights claims, stating that the Legislature rationally created distinct licensing requirements for different professions based on their varied roles.

Texas LawOccupational LicensingSocial WorkersHealth Care ProfessionalsViolent FeloniesDue Course ClauseEqual RightsSovereign ImmunityJurisdictionAppellate Law
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sundram v. City of Niagara Falls

The case involves a petitioner, an Indian national and permanent resident alien, whose application for a taxicab driver's license in Niagara Falls, New York, was denied due to a citizenship requirement in a city ordinance. The petitioner challenged this requirement, arguing it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Citing precedents like Yick Wo v. Hopkins and Truax v. Raich, the court affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment extends protection to aliens regarding their right to earn a livelihood. The court found no compelling state interest to justify the citizenship classification for taxicab drivers, deeming the "undifferentiated fear" of criminal activity insufficient. Consequently, the court held subdivision (e) of section 16 of chapter 365 of the Niagara Falls ordinances unconstitutional, but withheld injunctive relief pending the full processing of the petitioner's application.

Citizenship RequirementEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentAlien RightsTaxicab LicensingOrdinance ConstitutionalityOccupational LicensingDiscriminationRight to WorkNiagara Falls
References
14
Case No. 03-93-00229-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 1995

Bernard J. Dolenz v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners

The Texas State Board of Medical Examiners suspended Bernard J. Dolenz' medical license. Dolenz sought judicial review, but the district court dismissed his suit, asserting it lacked jurisdiction due to an insufficient motion for rehearing filed with the Board. Dolenz appealed this dismissal, arguing the district court erred in its jurisdictional finding. The appellate court examined the requirements for a motion for rehearing under the Administrative Procedure Act and found Dolenz' motion was not entirely deficient. Consequently, the appellate court determined the district court improperly granted the plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the case, thus reversing the order and remanding for further proceedings.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewPlea to JurisdictionMotion for RehearingSufficiency of MotionMedical License SuspensionTexas State Board of Medical ExaminersAppellate ProcedureJurisdictional DefectsStatutory Compliance
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas State Board of Examiners v. Texas Medical Ass'n

The Texas Medical Association challenged a rule by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists that permits licensed marriage and family therapists (MFTs) to provide diagnostic assessments. The Medical Association argued that this rule is invalid because the Texas Occupations Code does not authorize MFTs to provide such assessments, reserving this authority primarily for medical licensees. The Therapists Board contended that their authorizing statute, the Texas Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists Act, permits evaluations which encompass diagnostic assessments, and that "diagnose" is a type of "evaluate" in this context. The Supreme Court of Texas agreed with the Therapists Board, concluding that the Therapists Act authorizes MFTs to provide diagnostic assessments as described in the rule, and the Medical Practice Act does not prohibit it. The Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and rendered judgment that the rule is valid.

Marriage and Family TherapyDiagnostic AssessmentTexas Occupations CodeMedical Practice ActScope of PracticeStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawProfessional LicensingMental Health DiagnosisRule Validity
References
42
Case No. M2010-01582-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2011

Kevin Cox, D.V.M. v. Tennessee Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners

Kevin Cox, a licensed veterinarian, appealed an administrative decision by the Tennessee Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners. The Board sanctioned Dr. Cox for improperly prescribing medications to farms without establishing a proper veterinarian-client-patient relationship. The Chancery Court affirmed the Board's decision. The Court of Appeals reviewed the Board's findings, concluding that there was substantial and material evidence to support the six violations related to prescribing medications without examination and sufficient follow-up. The court also found that the Board's decision was not arbitrary or capricious, rejecting arguments about insufficient notice and bias. The imposition of Type A sanctions was also upheld due to the knowing and willful nature of the violations and potential public health threats, affirming the decisions of both the Board and the Chancery Court.

Veterinary Medical EthicsPrescription PracticesAdministrative Law AppealProfessional MisconductVeterinarian-Client-Patient RelationshipStandard of CareDue ProcessSanctionsTennessee Court of AppealsRegulatory Board Decision
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Medical Examiners Ex Rel. State v. Nzedu

Dr. Vivian Nzedu's application for a medical license in Texas was denied by the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners due to her failure to pass the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) within the statutorily permitted number of attempts. The Board included an examination attempt made before the September 1, 1993, effective date of the "three-attempts statute" in its calculation. The trial court initially sided with Dr. Nzedu, ruling that the pre-1993 attempt should not be counted and awarded her attorneys' fees, deeming the Board's interpretation an unconstitutional retroactive application of the law. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, holding that allowing the Board to consider antecedent facts, such as prior examination attempts, does not constitute an unconstitutional retroactive application of the statute. The court also affirmed that Dr. Nzedu did not possess a vested right in the continuity of specific licensing procedures, thereby denying her request for declaratory relief. Consequently, the appellate court rendered judgment in favor of the Board and remanded the case for a redetermination of attorneys' fees, consistent with its findings.

Medical LicensingProfessional RegulationRetroactive Application of LawStatutory InterpretationVested RightsConstitutional LawAdministrative LawSummary JudgmentDeclaratory ReliefUSMLE
References
27
Case No. 03-14-00774-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2015

Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, and Nicole Oria, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director// Ellen Jefferson, D.V.M. v. Ellen Jefferson, D.V.M.// Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, and Nicole Oria, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director

This Amicus Curiae Brief is filed on behalf of Best Friends Animal Society, a national nonprofit animal welfare organization. It opposes the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners' (the 'Board') enforcement actions against Ellen Jefferson, D.V.M., alleging these actions illegally expand the Board's jurisdiction beyond statutory limits and usurp animal welfare responsibilities delegated to the Texas Board of Health and municipalities. The brief argues the Board's actions violate both unambiguous statutory language and the Board's own rules, attempting to regulate animal welfare instead of merely licensing veterinarians. Best Friends contends that if unchecked, the Board's overreach will debilitate no-kill shelters and lead to an exponential increase in animal euthanasia in Texas.

Veterinary Licensing ActAnimal WelfareTexas Board of Veterinary Medical ExaminersJurisdiction DisputeNo-Kill SheltersRegulatory OverreachStatutory InterpretationAmicus CuriaeProperty RightsTexas Occupations Code
References
59
Showing 1-10 of 3,495 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