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. 03-13-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage // Cross-Appellant,Texas Medical Association v. Texas Medical Association// Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage

The amicus brief, submitted by The Association of Marital and Family Therapy Regulatory Boards (AMFTRB), urges the Third Court of Appeals to grant en banc reconsideration and reverse a panel's decision that found 22 TEX. ADMIN CODE §801.42(13) invalid. The brief argues that Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists (LMFTs) are fully qualified, trained, and tested to perform diagnostic assessments within their therapeutic role. It asserts that diagnosis alone, in the context of marriage and family therapy, does not constitute the practice of medicine under the Texas Medical Practice Act, and preventing LMFTs from performing these assessments would effectively prohibit their professional practice and create a shortage of mental health professionals in Texas. The AMFTRB also highlights that the legislature did not intend for LMFTs to be supervised by physicians and that the structure of the Occupations Code supports marriage and family therapy as a stand-alone profession. Additionally, the brief questions the qualification of the Texas Medical Association's expert witness due to prior ethical lapses.

Marriage and Family TherapyDiagnostic AssessmentMedical Practice ActOccupations CodeRegulatory BoardsLicensureScope of PracticeMental Health ServicesTexasAccreditation
References
9
Case No. 03-22-00420-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

Stephanie Muth, in Her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. PFLAG, Inc. and Adam Briggle and Amber Briggle, Individually and as Parents and Next Friends of M.B., a Minor

This appeal concerns temporary injunctions issued against the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) and its Commissioner. The injunctions prevent DFPS from investigating parents for child abuse solely based on providing gender-affirming medical care to minors, a policy adopted following an Attorney General opinion and Governor's directive. The Court affirmed the injunctions, finding that the appellees (families with transgender children and PFLAG, Inc.) had standing, their claims were ripe and not moot, and sovereign immunity was waived. The court concluded that DFPS's policy constituted an invalid rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, adopted without proper procedures, and interfered with fundamental parental and children's constitutional rights.

Gender-affirming careChild abuse investigationAdministrative Procedure ActParental rightsConstitutional rightsStandingRipenessMootnessSovereign immunityTexas law
References
28
Case No. 03-22-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Stephanie Muth in Her Official Capacity of Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor John Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor And Dr. Megan Mooney

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction against the State of Texas for issuing a directive that classifies gender-affirming medical care for minors as child abuse. Appellees, including parents of a transgender adolescent and a psychologist, sued to enjoin the State from initiating child abuse investigations based on this directive. The trial court denied the State's plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of jurisdiction and the injunction against the Department of Family and Protective Services and its Commissioner, concluding that the directive constituted an invalid rule under the APA and caused irreparable harm. However, it reversed the denial of jurisdiction and dismissed claims against the Governor, stating he lacked authority to control investigatory decisions.

Gender-affirming careChild abuse policyTemporary injunctionAdministrative Procedure ActUltra viresParental rightsEqual protectionDue processState government authorityJudicial review
References
62
Case No. 02-20-00225-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2021

Steven Hernandez, Francisco Azuero, and Family Heritage Life Insurance Company of America v. Combined Insurance Company of America

Individual Appellants Steven Hernandez and Francisco Azuero, along with Family Heritage Life Insurance Company of America, appealed a temporary injunction order granted to Combined Insurance Company of America. Combined alleged that Hernandez and Azuero, former district sales managers, violated non-solicitation and confidentiality covenants in their employment agreements by soliciting Combined's employees and policyholders after joining Family Heritage. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's findings that the covenants were reasonable, that Individual Appellants probably solicited Combined's policyholders and agents, and that Combined would suffer imminent and irreparable injury. However, the court reversed and remanded the injunction's form for lacking reasonable detail regarding identified parties and geographic scope. Crucially, the court sustained Family Heritage's appeal, vacating and dissolving the injunction against it, finding no evidence of tortious interference or an agency relationship to support vicarious liability for Individual Appellants' acts.

Temporary InjunctionNoncompete CovenantNonsolicitation AgreementConfidential InformationTortious InterferenceIndependent ContractorVicarious LiabilityAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewContract Breach
References
77
Case No. 03-16-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision

E. A.// Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services// Cross-Appellee, E. A.

This document is an appeal brief filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) in the Third Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas. The appeal concerns an administrative proceeding where E.A. challenged a Texas Health and Human Services Commission order. The order affirmed the Department's decision to place E.A.'s name in the Employee Misconduct Registry after an administrative law judge found E.A. neglected residents at Four J’s Community Living Center. The central argument of the brief is that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over E.A.'s suit for judicial review because E.A. failed to file a timely motion for rehearing, a jurisdictional prerequisite under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Department seeks to reverse the trial court's order denying its plea to the jurisdiction and to dismiss E.A.'s suit.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityEmployee Misconduct RegistryContested CaseMotion for RehearingJurisdictionAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationTexas Government Code
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stolarski v. Family Services of Westchester, Inc.

Plaintiff Arlene Stolarski appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which dismissed her cause of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering in a wrongful death action. The decedent, after an apparent suicide attempt and subsequent consultations with Family Services of Westchester, Inc., died by suicide shortly after. Plaintiff alleged negligence by Family Services in treating the decedent's depression, causing conscious pain and suffering between October 19, 2005, and October 28, 2005. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, reasoning that such damages couldn't be recovered in a wrongful death action and that the depression was pre-existing. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that a cause of action for personal injuries, including conscious pain and suffering due to professional malpractice, survives the decedent's death and may be recovered by her estate, and that pre-existing conditions do not preclude proving exacerbation by alleged negligent treatment.

Wrongful DeathConscious Pain and SufferingProfessional MalpracticeNegligenceSuicideMental Health TreatmentSurvival StatuteAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissPre-existing Condition
References
14
Case No. 01-07-00584-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2008

DEPT. FAMILY, PROT. SERV. v. Dickensheets

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) appealed a trial court's dismissal of a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, challenging the constitutionality of Family Code section 263.401. DFPS contended that the statute's deadline for dismissing termination suits violated the Separation of Powers Clause by unduly interfering with prosecutorial discretion. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.), affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the dismissal order was a final and appealable order. The court further ruled that section 263.401 is constitutional, distinguishing it from the unconstitutional Speedy Trial Act, because it allows for extensions, requires consideration of the child's best interest, and dismissals are without prejudice, thus not unduly interfering with DFPS's prosecutorial function. The statute's purpose is to expedite resolutions in child custody cases and provide stability for children.

Family LawChild Protective ServicesParental Rights TerminationConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersAccelerated AppealStatutory InterpretationTexas Family CodeProsecutorial DiscretionJudicial Review
References
27
Case No. 01-05-00311-CV; 01-05-00312-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2006

Lashonda Rochelle v. Department of Family and Protective Services

This case involves the termination of parental rights of Lashonda Montrie Rochelle to her five minor children by the 314th District Court of Harris County, Texas. The Department of Family & Protective Services initiated the proceedings following reports of abuse to the eldest child, K.R., and concerns regarding the care of prematurely born twins, F.B. and A.B., and two other children, J.B. and J.P. The appellant challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence for endangerment under Family Code § 161.001(1)(E) and the children's best interest. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient clear and convincing evidence of a course of conduct endangering the children's well-being and that termination was in their best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbuseChild NeglectBest Interest of ChildSufficiency of EvidenceDue ProcessSole Managing ConservatorshipAppellate ReviewFoster CareChild Endangerment
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Summers v. Cherokee Children & Family Services, Inc.

The Attorney General initiated a lawsuit to dissolve two nonprofit public benefit corporations, Cherokee Children and Family Services, Inc. (CCFS) and Cherokee Children Nutrition, Inc. (CCN). The Attorney General alleged that the corporations had abandoned their charitable purposes and engaged in various forms of self-dealing, including excessive compensation to the executive director and her family, questionable real estate transactions, and problematic investments. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Attorney General, ordering dissolution and the appointment of a receiver. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding that the corporations were exploited for private monetary gain rather than serving public benefit, thus justifying their dissolution.

Nonprofit DissolutionCorporate GovernanceFiduciary Duty BreachPrivate InurementSelf-DealingPublic Benefit CorporationCharitable Purpose AbandonmentSummary JudgmentAttorney General ActionTennessee Corporate Law
References
51
Case No. 01-11-00137-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2012

L.M. and Y.Y. v. Department of Family and Protective Services

This case concerns the termination of parental rights of L.M. and Y.Y. to their three minor children, I.M., L.M., Jr., and T.M. The Department of Family and Protective Services initiated the proceedings following allegations of domestic violence by Y.Y. against L.M., including a broken arm and sexual assault, which Y.Y. later recanted. The Department also cited L.M.'s failure to participate in a batterer intervention program. The trial court, incorporating jury findings, terminated parental rights based on findings of endangerment under Family Code subsections 161.001(1)(D), (E), and (O). L.M. and Y.Y. appealed, challenging evidentiary rulings and the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the endangerment findings and that any errors in admitting testimony were harmless.

Parental Rights TerminationDomestic ViolenceChild EndangermentTexas Family CodeSufficiency of EvidenceHearsay EvidenceAppellate ReviewChild Protective ServicesSexual AssaultAbuse of Discretion
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 2,519 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