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

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. 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

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

Payne v. Goodman Manufacturing Co.

Plaintiff Connie Payne filed a lawsuit against her former employer, Goodman Manufacturing Company, L.P., alleging claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for interference and retaliation, violations of the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) for maternity leave, pregnancy discrimination, and retaliation, and claims under the Equal Pay Act (EPA). The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court denied summary judgment on the plaintiff's FMLA interference and retaliation claims, allowing them to proceed to trial, citing sufficient evidence of a causal connection due to temporal proximity between the FMLA request and termination. However, the court granted summary judgment on all THRA claims (pregnancy discrimination, maternity leave, and retaliation) and the EPA claim, dismissing them with prejudice. The THRA pregnancy discrimination claim failed due to a lack of direct evidence and insufficient temporal proximity. The THRA maternity leave and retaliation claims were also dismissed as they were analyzed under similar standards as the failed THRA discrimination claims. The EPA claim was dismissed because the plaintiff could not establish "equal work" compared to male co-workers, as they possessed more technical certifications and skills.

FMLATHRAEqual Pay ActPregnancy DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawDiscriminationWorkplace RightsWage Disparity
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sarno v. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael Sarno sued his employer, Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives (DEGI), alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Sarno claimed DEGI refused to accommodate his alleged disability, terminated his employment, and retaliated against him, in addition to failing to notify him of FMLA rights. Sarno suffered a hernia and a sprained rectus muscle, leading to a leave of absence. DEGI terminated his employment after twelve weeks of unpaid leave. The court granted DEGI's motion for summary judgment and denied Sarno's. The court found Sarno failed to prove he was disabled under the ADA as his impairments were not substantially limiting or permanent. Furthermore, even if DEGI failed to provide adequate FMLA notice, Sarno received the full benefits of the leave and thus was not harmed, precluding FMLA violation claims.

ADAFMLAEmployment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTerminationReasonable AccommodationSprained MuscleHerniaPrima Facie Case
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Sharp Electronics Corp.

Latayina Jones sued Sharp Electronics Corporation, alleging interference with her Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) rights, retaliation for exercising FMLA rights, and disability discrimination under the Tennessee Disability Act. Sharp moved for summary judgment on all claims. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee granted summary judgment to Sharp on both FMLA claims, finding Jones was not an eligible employee under the FMLA as she did not work the requisite hours. The court also rejected Jones's equitable estoppel argument and found she had exhausted her FMLA leave. Regarding the FMLA retaliation claim, the court again cited ineligibility and, alternatively, found Sharp provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination (inability to return to work) which Jones failed to rebut as pretextual. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Tennessee Disability Act claim and remanded it to the state circuit court.

FMLA InterferenceFMLA RetaliationSummary JudgmentEquitable EstoppelEligible EmployeeHours of ServiceRolling Twelve-Month PeriodTennessee Disability ActSupplemental JurisdictionRemand
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2013

Villegas v. Albertsons, LLC

Plaintiff Arturo Villegas, an employee at Albertsons, brought claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for interference and retaliation, and a defamation claim against Albertsons, LLC and his supervisor, Antonio Labrado. Villegas alleged FMLA interference due to schedule adjustments instead of FMLA leave for his daughter's medical appointments and Mr. Labrado discouraging leave. He also claimed retaliation after his termination for alleged theft and defamation by Mr. Labrado. The Court granted summary judgment for the Defendants, finding no prejudice for the FMLA interference claim as Villegas attended all appointments and received his normal paycheck. The FMLA retaliation claim failed due to lack of a prima facie case and no proof of pretext. The defamation claim also failed as no defamatory statement was made by Mr. Labrado, and even if it had, it would be qualifiedly privileged.

FMLA InterferenceFMLA RetaliationDefamationSummary JudgmentWorkplace TheftSupervisor LiabilityNotice RequirementsQualified PrivilegeMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkEmployment Law
References
34
Case No. 04-12-00462-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2013

Jose Luis Pena v. County of Starr

Jose Luis Pena appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of his former employer, Starr County, on his claims for retaliatory discharge, discrimination, and violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Pena was terminated after taking an extended medical leave due to complicated surgery, following an earlier back injury for which he filed a workers' compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for age discrimination and the retaliatory discharge claim, the latter due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction against a governmental entity under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment regarding Pena's FMLA claim and his discrimination claim based on disability. The FMLA claim was deemed timely under the relation-back doctrine, and the disability discrimination claim was reversed because the County failed to address all aspects of Pena's alleged disability in its motion.

Retaliatory DischargeFamily Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Disability DiscriminationAge DiscriminationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ClaimRelation-back DoctrineSubject Matter JurisdictionMedical LeaveEmployment Law
References
48
Showing 1-10 of 19,982 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