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. 2019 NY Slip Op 05744 [174 AD3d 1206]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2019

Matter of Civil Serv. Employees Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME AFL-CIO v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.

The case involves Jarred Sansky, a probationary employee, terminated from his position as Cadet Leader 1 by the New York State Office of Children and Family Services. Petitioners, including Sansky and the Civil Service Employees Association, challenged the termination under CPLR article 78, arguing Sansky had completed his probationary term and was dismissed in bad faith or retaliation for reporting neglect. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding Sansky was still probationary and petitioners failed to prove bad faith or retaliation. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the dismissal, holding that Sansky's temporary service in a higher position did not automatically count towards his probationary period and that allegations of bad faith or retaliation were unsupported by evidence. Therefore, Sansky, as a probationary employee, was not entitled to a pretermination hearing.

probationary employmentterminationCPLR article 78bad faith dismissalretaliationcivil service lawtemporary appointmentprovisional appointmentNew York State Office of Children and Family ServicesCadet Leader
References
10
Case No. 08-10-00067-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2011

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Norma Parra

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (Department) appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a retaliatory discharge suit filed by former employee Norma Parra. Parra alleged retaliatory termination after filing for worker's compensation benefits. The Department argued that sovereign immunity for such claims had not been clearly and unambiguously waived under Section 311.034 of the Texas Government Code. Citing Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, distinguishing the case from Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman and asserting that the State Applications Act (SAA) continues to waive sovereign immunity for retaliation claims against state agencies.

Retaliatory DischargeSovereign ImmunityWorker's CompensationStatutory InterpretationGovernment LiabilityAppellate ReviewPlea to JurisdictionTexas Labor CodeTexas Government CodeWaiver of Immunity
References
4
Case No. 03-08-00226-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2008

PODER, Govalle/Johnston Terrace Neighborhood Planning Team, Old West Austin Neighborhood Association and Fix Austin v. City of Austin Mayor of Austin, the Honorable Will Wynn Mayor Pro Tem Betty Dunkerley Council Member Mike Martinez Council Member Jennifer Kim Council Member Lee Leffingwell Council Member Brewster McCracken Council Member Sheryl Cole

Appellants, including PODER and neighborhood planning teams, challenged the City of Austin's decision to relocate its animal shelter. They contended that the City violated Article X of the Austin City Charter by not including the project in its comprehensive plan and that the city council violated the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) regarding its March 8, 2007 meeting. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding that the animal shelter relocation was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Plan, and that the city council's actions regarding budget allocations were properly noticed under TOMA. Therefore, no violation of the city charter or TOMA occurred.

Austin City CharterTexas Open Meetings Act (TOMA)Summary JudgmentAnimal Shelter RelocationComprehensive PlanningNeighborhood PlanningZoning RegulationsGovernmental ImmunityAppellate ReviewLand Use Policy
References
19
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01801 [236 AD3d 1020]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2025

Matter of Borgia v. SCO Family of Servs.

The case involves a dispute between the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn Workers' Compensation Trust (Trust) and SCO Family of Services (SCO) over an unpaid assessment. SCO, a former member of the Trust, was assessed $3.45 million for the Trust's deficit. After making partial payments, SCO sought to verify the assessment, leading the Trustees to initiate a proceeding to enforce an alternative dispute resolution provision. The Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding based on the statute of limitations. The Appellate Division reversed, finding a question of fact as to whether SCO's 2014 partial payment renewed the statute of limitations and whether an installment payment plan was agreed upon. The court also rejected SCO's public policy argument against the dispute resolution provision, remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Alternative Dispute ResolutionContract EnforcementStatute of LimitationsPartial PaymentWorkers' Compensation TrustGroup Self-InsuranceAppellate ReviewQuestion of FactInstallment PaymentsPublic Policy
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Norma B. v. Sven H.

The Family Court of New York County, presided over by Justice Tandra L. Dawson, issued orders on March 31, 2008, September 8, 2008, and October 16, 2007. These orders, in part, found insufficient evidence for aggravating circumstances under Family Court Act § 827 (a) (vii) and denied a petitioner's motion to allow a social worker or the child to testify about out-of-court statements. Upon appeal, the Family Court's credibility findings were affirmed. The appellate court found that acts exposing family members to physical injury were not sufficiently contemporaneous to establish "immediate and ongoing danger." While acknowledging the Family Court's error in denying the child in camera testimony at the dispositional hearing, a remand was deemed unnecessary as such testimony would not have altered the finding regarding aggravating circumstances due to its lack of contemporaneity. The appeal was unanimously affirmed.

Family LawChild TestimonyAggravating CircumstancesCredibility FindingsAppellate ReviewFamily Court ActChild AbuseDomestic ViolenceContemporaneous ActsEvidentiary Ruling
References
2
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soto v. Texas Department of Family & Protective Services

Plaintiff Areline Soto sued her former employer, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Service (CPS), alleging employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the ADA, and the Texas Workers’ Compensation Statute. CPS filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss certain claims, including ADA discrimination and retaliation claims and the Texas Anti-Retaliation Act claim, citing Eleventh Amendment immunity. Soto subsequently amended her complaint, replacing ADA claims with Rehabilitation Act claims, arguing the motion was moot. The Court granted CPS's motion, dismissing Soto's ADA claims as moot due to the amended complaint. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the Texas Anti-Retaliation Act claim with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, affirming CPS's sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIADATexas Workers' Compensation StatuteAnti-Retaliation ActRule 12(b)(1)Subject Matter JurisdictionEleventh Amendment ImmunitySovereign Immunity
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dembin v. Lvi Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Shari Dembin sued LVI Services, Inc., LVI Parent Corp., and Scott E. State, alleging discriminatory retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court had previously granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Dembin's NYCHRL claims, a ruling confirmed in this Memorandum Order. The primary focus of this order is the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Dembin's remaining ADEA retaliation claim, stemming from her termination after her father complained of age discrimination. Defendants argued their cost-cutting measures were not pretextual and that the Supreme Court's *Thompson* precedent, concerning family member retaliation under Title VII, did not extend to ADEA claims. The Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ADEA claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext and concluding that *Thompson*'s reasoning applies to ADEA retaliation claims due to similar statutory language. The ADEA retaliation claim will proceed to trial.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentPretextADEATitle VIIEmployment LawFamily Member RetaliationSouthern District of New YorkFederal Law
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,893 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