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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Webb Hospital Corp.

Plaintiff San Juana Rodriguez sued her former employer, Laredo Medical Center, alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), specifically retaliation for taking medical leave. She claimed that after eye surgery, she experienced adverse employment actions, including an increased workload, an attempted vacation day change, and an undesirable shift assignment, leading to a hostile work environment and constructive discharge. The Court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliation. The judge ruled that the alleged actions did not constitute materially adverse employment actions that would dissuade a reasonable employee from exercising FMLA rights. Consequently, all of Plaintiff's claims, including interference, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge, were dismissed with prejudice.

FMLARetaliationSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionConstructive DischargeHostile Work EnvironmentEmployment DiscriminationPhlebotomistMedical LeaveTexas Law
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jeffrey D.

Petitioner filed a petition under Family Court Act article 10, alleging child abuse and neglect of respondents' three-month-old son, Jeffrey. Initial allegations involved scalding and bruises, later supplemented with claims of numerous fractured ribs following further medical examinations. The Family Court found no abuse but adjudicated the child neglected. The mother appealed, but the Appellate Court rejected the mootness argument, citing the permanent stigma of a neglect adjudication. Based on expert medical testimony from Dr. Louise Godine, who identified nine fractured ribs indicative of forceful squeezing and determined the injuries predated the scalding, the Appellate Court affirmed the Family Court's finding. The court noted the parents' failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the injuries, allowing for strong adverse inferences.

Child Neglect AdjudicationFamily Court Act Article 10Infant Rib FracturesScalding InjuriesMedical Expert TestimonyPreponderance of Evidence StandardMootness Doctrine ApplicationParental Explanations DiscreditedAdverse InferencesAppellate Affirmation
References
9
Case No. 2-06-016-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2007

Shioleno Industries, Inc. AND Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. and Columbia North Texas Subsidiary, GP, LLC D/B/A Medical Center of Arlington v. Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. and Columbia North Texas Subsidiary, GP, LLC D/B/A Medical Center of Arlington AND Shioleno Industries, Inc.

Shioleno Industries, Inc. appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. and Columbia North Texas Subsidiary, GP, LLC d/b/a Medical Center of Arlington (the Hospital). The case originated from the Hospital's alleged failure to disclose an employee's positive drug and alcohol test results to Shioleno after an on-the-job injury. Shioleno contended that this omission led to increased workers' compensation premiums and expenses in unemployment benefit disputes. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Shioleno failed to provide a valid authorization for the disclosure of medical information. Consequently, the Hospital had no legal duty to disclose the results and could not be held liable for negligence, breach of contract, or Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations.

Summary JudgmentMedical RecordsDisclosure AuthorizationHealth & Safety CodeNegligenceBreach of ContractDTPADrug TestingAlcohol TestingEmployer Liability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rogers v. New York University

Susan Rogers sued her former employer, New York University (NYU), alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), New York State and City Human Rights Laws, and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Rogers, an administrative aide, experienced psychological difficulties and took two medical leaves in 1997. After exhausting her FMLA leave, NYU terminated her, citing a lack of written medical certification for her return to work. The court granted summary judgment to NYU on Rogers' FMLA claims, finding that her therapist's oral communications were insufficient certification. However, the court denied summary judgment on her ADA claims, ruling that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether an extended leave would have been a reasonable accommodation for her disability, given that NYU did not fill her position but used temporary workers during the requested six-week extension.

ADAFMLAdisability discriminationreasonable accommodationsummary judgmentextended leaveemployment lawwrongful terminationmental healthpost-traumatic stress disorder
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Di Giovanna v. Beth Israel Medical Center

Joseph Di Giovanna, a former director at Beth Israel Medical Center (BIMC), sued BIMC and Continuum Health Partners, Inc. for violating the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). He alleged interference with his FMLA rights by being discouraged from taking leave to care for his father and unlawful retaliation through termination for exercising those rights. Defendants sought summary judgment, asserting Di Giovanna was fired for documented poor performance, not FMLA use. The court, presided over by District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, granted the defendants' motion. It found no admissible evidence of FMLA interference and concluded that Di Giovanna failed to prove his termination was motivated by his exercise of FMLA rights, despite assuming a prima facie case for retaliation.

FMLARetaliationInterferenceSummary JudgmentEmployment LawDiscriminationFamily LeavePerformance ReviewHuman ResourcesFederal Court
References
59
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. 03-05-00032-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. 2022-08-0195
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2022

Evans, Antron v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.

Mr. Antron Evans requested a panel of psychiatrists, attorney's fees, and payment of a medical bill following a store robbery where he sustained a head injury. Family Dollar, the employer, contended he was not entitled to a psychiatric panel without a referral from an authorized physician, disputed the medical bill, and denied wrongfully denying the claim for attorney's fees. The Court denied Mr. Evans's requests for a psychiatric panel and payment of the emergency room bill, citing the statutory requirement of a panel physician's referral for psychiatric services and lack of proof for the medical bill. However, the Court granted his request for attorney's fees due to Family Dollar's five-month delay in timely initiating medical benefits. Additionally, Family Dollar was referred to the Compliance Program for potential penalties concerning the late filing of the First Report of Injury and the untimely provision of a panel of physicians.

Workers' CompensationMedical Benefits DenialAttorney's Fees GrantEmployer PenaltiesExpedited HearingPsychiatric ReferralStatutory InterpretationLate Claim ProcessingFirst Report of Injury DelayPost-Traumatic Stress
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 19,958 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