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. 03-10-00160-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. 03-11-00057-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2012

Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Tahereh Rokhti, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi// Cross Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity// Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Tahereh Rokhti, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi

This case involves cross-appeals concerning the constitutionality of cosmetology statutes and administrative rules as they apply to eyebrow threading in Texas. The appellants, who operate eyebrow threading businesses, argued that these regulations infringe upon their constitutional right to economic liberty under article I, section 19 of the Texas Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and its officials, denying the appellants' motion. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the challenged regulations are sufficiently rational and reasonable to meet constitutional due course requirements, falling within the state's police power for public health and safety concerns related to cosmetology services.

Eyebrow ThreadingCosmetology RegulationEconomic LibertyDue ProcessRational Basis ReviewPolice PowerSummary JudgmentTexas ConstitutionState AgenciesOccupational Licensing
References
61
Case No. 03-15-00401-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2015

in Re Xerox Corporation and Xerox State Healthcare, LLC F/K/A ACS State Healthcare, LLC

Relators Xerox Corporation and Xerox State Healthcare, LLC seek a writ of mandamus to overturn trial court orders that struck their third-party claims and denied leave to designate responsible third parties. The underlying suit is a Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act (TMFPA) enforcement action by the State of Texas against Xerox for misrepresenting its prior authorization review process for orthodontia services, leading to unauthorized Medicaid payments. The State argues the TMFPA is a remedial public welfare statute, not tort-based, and therefore Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code (CPRC) on proportionate responsibility does not apply. The State asserts it seeks civil remedies and penalties from Xerox for its independent unlawful acts, not apportionable damages, and that Xerox has an adequate remedy on appeal.

Medicaid FraudTexas LawMandamusCivil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationState EnforcementPrior AuthorizationHealthcare LitigationTort LawProportionate Responsibility
References
98
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Classen v. Irving Healthcare System

Carol Classen sued her former employer, Irving Healthcare System, alleging retaliatory discharge for pursuing workers’ compensation benefits, a claim prohibited by Texas law. Irving Healthcare System, a municipal hospital authority and governmental entity, asserted immunity from suit. The trial court and court of appeals sided with Irving Healthcare, concluding that governmental immunity had not been waived for such claims under article 8307c. However, citing a recent precedent set in *City of La Porte v. Barfield*, the Supreme Court of Texas determined that governmental immunity had been partially waived in wrongful discharge cases. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with *Barfield*.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsGovernmental ImmunityWaiver of ImmunityMunicipal Hospital AuthoritySummary JudgmentRemandTexas LawEmployer-Employee DisputeLabor Code
References
2
Case No. 12-0657
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2015

Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation

This dissenting opinion addresses a challenge by eyebrow threaders (petitioners) to Texas' cosmetology licensing scheme, which requires 750 hours of training for an esthetician license. The petitioners argue that these requirements are excessive and violate substantive due process, lacking a rational connection to public health and safety. Chief Justice Hecht's dissent argues against the majority's decision to strike down the regulation, contending that while the regulation might be 'injudicious' as policy, it is not unconstitutional. The dissent asserts that the regulation is rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in protecting public health and safety, citing potential health risks from hair removal and similar regulations in other states. It criticizes the majority for creating an 'oppressive' standard for substantive due process, departing from the established rational basis test and risking judicial overreach into legislative policy-making.

Economic LibertyDue ProcessSubstantive Due ProcessRational Basis TestCosmetology RegulationEyebrow ThreadingJudicial ActivismPolice PowerTexas ConstitutionOccupational Licensing
References
26
Case No. CA 13-01105
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2014

KALEIDA HEALTH v. UNIVERA HEALTHCARE

This case concerns an appeal by Utica Mutual Insurance Company from a judgment that denied its motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Kaleida Health and Univera Healthcare. The judgment declared Utica obligated to pay an outstanding hospital bill to Kaleida Health. Utica argued that collateral estoppel applied due to a Workers' Compensation Board determination, but the court found Kaleida Health and Univera Healthcare were not parties to that proceeding. Utica also contended the action was barred by arbitration, which was rejected as not compulsory. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding Utica was responsible for the hospital bill as the patient's admission was a continuation of treatment for a work-related injury.

Workers' CompensationHospital BillCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentArbitrationPublic Health LawAppellate PracticeInsurance ObligationWork-Related InjuryHealth Care Provider
References
3
Case No. 2015-06-0977
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2019

Clay, Sharee v. Signature Healthcare

Ms. Clay, a CNA for Signature Healthcare, sustained neck and shoulder injuries while assisting a patient. Signature initially denied her workers' compensation claim, asserting her injuries were due to a prior car accident or pre-existing degenerative conditions. The Court found Ms. Clay's injuries were primarily work-related, crediting the testimony of Dr. Lanford and Dr. West. The Court ordered Signature Healthcare to provide ongoing medical treatment for her work-related injuries and pay her $20,731.50 in permanent partial disability benefits and $580.71 in temporary total disability benefits, totaling $21,312.21.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryNeck InjuryCausationMedical TestimonyImpairment RatingDisability BenefitsTreating PhysicianIndependent Medical ExaminationCar Accident
References
6
Case No. 2021-08-0034
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2022

Williams, Lawrence v. Methodist LeBonheur Healthcare

This case concerns an appeal by Methodist LeBonheur Healthcare regarding the calculation of death benefits for Lawrence Williams, the surviving spouse of Linda Williams, a healthcare worker who died from COVID-19. The parties initially agreed on a settlement, but the trial court, presided over by Judge Deana C. Seymour, rejected it due to an inconsistent calculation of the 'maximum total benefit.' The trial court concluded that the maximum total benefit should be calculated by multiplying the state’s average weekly wage by 450 weeks, as per Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(15)(D). The Appeals Board, led by Presiding Judge Timothy W. Conner, affirmed the trial court’s decision, clarifying that while the weekly benefit rate is tied to the deceased employee's wages, the overall duration of payments is capped by an across-the-board limitation based on the state’s average weekly wage.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCOVID-19Maximum Total BenefitStatutory InterpretationState Average Weekly WageSurviving SpouseAppellate ReviewSettlement RejectionHealthcare Worker
References
5
Case No. M2005-01818-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2008

Bridgett Hill v. NHC Healthcare/Nashville, LLC

The administrators of Barbara Hill's estate, Bridgett Hill and Janece Wilson, filed a wrongful death suit against NHC Healthcare/Nashville, LLC, and Medic One after Ms. Hill died following her transfer from the nursing home to a hospital. NHC Healthcare sought to compel arbitration based on a clause in Ms. Hill's admission agreement, which also included a waiver of the right to a jury trial. The trial court denied this motion, finding the arbitration clause unconscionable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, determining that the arbitration agreement was an unconscionable contract of adhesion due to Ms. Hill's vulnerable state, lack of clear explanation of terms, its 'take-it-or-leave-it' nature, ambiguous provisions, and the potentially prohibitive upfront costs for arbitration, which would effectively deter claimants from seeking legal redress.

Wrongful DeathArbitration AgreementUnconscionabilityNursing Home NegligenceContract of AdhesionWaiver of Jury TrialMedical MalpracticeAppellate ReviewContract EnforcementCost Prohibitiveness
References
34
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02599 [171 AD3d 1277]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2019

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. A&T Healthcare, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board assumed administration of the insolvent Healthcare Providers Self-Insurance Trust, which had a deficit of $132.5 million. The Board initiated an action to recover the deficit from former employer-members, including Motherly Love Home Care Services Inc., who were jointly and severally liable. Motherly Love Home Care Services Inc. executed two settlement agreements but subsequently moved to vacate them, claiming a unilateral mistake by believing they had only signed duplicate copies of one agreement. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding no basis for vacating the agreements given their distinct terms and the clear clarifications provided by the Board's counsel.

Workers' Compensation TrustInsolvencySettlement AgreementVacate AgreementUnilateral MistakeJoint and Several LiabilityAppellate ReviewContract PrinciplesHome Health CareEmployer Liability
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,223 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