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. 03-05-00032-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. 03-05-00620-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2008

Texas Orthopaedic Association, Texas Medical Association and Andrew M. Kant, M.D. v. Texas State Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners Texas Podiatric Medical Association And Bruce A. Scudday, D.P.M.

The Texas Orthopaedic Association and others challenged a rule by the Texas State Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners that defined 'foot' to include portions of the ankle and soft tissues extending into the leg. Appellants argued this rule impermissibly expanded the scope of podiatry beyond its statutory definition and intruded into the practice of medicine. The district court initially found the rule valid. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the Board exceeded its authority. The appellate court concluded that the rule's expansive definition authorized podiatrists to treat anatomical features located well above the traditional foot and ankle, which is inconsistent with the occupations code and constitutes an unauthorized practice of medicine.

Podiatry ScopeRegulatory AuthorityStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Rule ValidityMedical Practice ActTexas Occupations CodeDeclaratory JudgmentAnkle TreatmentFoot DefinitionMedical Licensing Board
References
29
Case No. M2010-01582-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2011

Kevin Cox, D.V.M. v. Tennessee Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners

Kevin Cox, a licensed veterinarian, appealed an administrative decision by the Tennessee Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners. The Board sanctioned Dr. Cox for improperly prescribing medications to farms without establishing a proper veterinarian-client-patient relationship. The Chancery Court affirmed the Board's decision. The Court of Appeals reviewed the Board's findings, concluding that there was substantial and material evidence to support the six violations related to prescribing medications without examination and sufficient follow-up. The court also found that the Board's decision was not arbitrary or capricious, rejecting arguments about insufficient notice and bias. The imposition of Type A sanctions was also upheld due to the knowing and willful nature of the violations and potential public health threats, affirming the decisions of both the Board and the Chancery Court.

Veterinary Medical EthicsPrescription PracticesAdministrative Law AppealProfessional MisconductVeterinarian-Client-Patient RelationshipStandard of CareDue ProcessSanctionsTennessee Court of AppealsRegulatory Board Decision
References
18
Case No. 03-93-00229-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 1995

Bernard J. Dolenz v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners

The Texas State Board of Medical Examiners suspended Bernard J. Dolenz' medical license. Dolenz sought judicial review, but the district court dismissed his suit, asserting it lacked jurisdiction due to an insufficient motion for rehearing filed with the Board. Dolenz appealed this dismissal, arguing the district court erred in its jurisdictional finding. The appellate court examined the requirements for a motion for rehearing under the Administrative Procedure Act and found Dolenz' motion was not entirely deficient. Consequently, the appellate court determined the district court improperly granted the plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the case, thus reversing the order and remanding for further proceedings.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewPlea to JurisdictionMotion for RehearingSufficiency of MotionMedical License SuspensionTexas State Board of Medical ExaminersAppellate ProcedureJurisdictional DefectsStatutory Compliance
References
24
Case No. 11-10-00235-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2012

Craig Carpenter v. Southwest Medical Examination Services, Inc.

Craig Carpenter, an injured employee, sued Southwest Medical Examination Services, Inc., Liberty Insurance Corporation (workers' compensation carrier), and Dr. Stumhoffer for common-law bad faith, statutory bad faith, and fraud, stemming from alleged damages due to delayed benefit payments. The dispute arose after the initial designated doctor, Dr. Stumhoffer, whose administrative services were provided by Southwest, concluded Carpenter's knee surgery was for a preexisting condition. Following a Benefit Review Conference, a second designated doctor, Dr. Zeeck, determined the surgery was work-related, and Liberty subsequently approved benefits. The trial court granted Southwest's motion for partial summary judgment, which Carpenter challenged on appeal. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, citing the Texas Supreme Court's ruling in Texas Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ruttiger, which established that the Workers' Compensation Act provides the exclusive dispute procedures for such claims, thereby precluding common-law bad faith and other statutory claims against carriers and their affiliates. The court also noted Southwest's lack of a direct contractual relationship with Carpenter, likening its position to that of an independent adjuster.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment AffirmationAppellate ProcedureBad Faith Insurance ClaimFraud AllegationsTexas Labor CodeExclusive Statutory RemedyDesignated Doctor DisputeMedical Condition Pre-existingAdministrative Dispute Resolution
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1994

People v. France

This is a combined decision addressing motions to vacate homicide convictions in six separate cases. The defendants argued that the prosecutor failed to disclose dictation audiotapes made by the New York City Medical Examiner, which they claimed constituted 'Rosario' material. The court denied the motions, ruling that the Medical Examiner's Office is an independent agency, and therefore, the audiotapes were not under the control of the District Attorney and not 'Rosario' material. The decision further clarifies that CPL article 240 provides for pretrial discovery of written reports but not dictation tapes, unless they contain exculpatory material. The court emphasized the Medical Examiner's role as an independent expert, distinct from 'event' or law enforcement witnesses, and concluded that their dictation tapes are not 'statements' within the 'Rosario' jurisprudence.

Rosario materialDiscovery rulesCPL 440.10 motionHomicide convictionMedical Examiner audiotapeAutopsy reportProsecutorial dutyDuplicative equivalentIndependent agencyCPL Article 240
References
31
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. 03-14-00774-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2015

Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, and Nicole Oria, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director// Ellen Jefferson, D.V.M. v. Ellen Jefferson, D.V.M.// Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, and Nicole Oria, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director

This Amicus Curiae Brief is filed on behalf of Best Friends Animal Society, a national nonprofit animal welfare organization. It opposes the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners' (the 'Board') enforcement actions against Ellen Jefferson, D.V.M., alleging these actions illegally expand the Board's jurisdiction beyond statutory limits and usurp animal welfare responsibilities delegated to the Texas Board of Health and municipalities. The brief argues the Board's actions violate both unambiguous statutory language and the Board's own rules, attempting to regulate animal welfare instead of merely licensing veterinarians. Best Friends contends that if unchecked, the Board's overreach will debilitate no-kill shelters and lead to an exponential increase in animal euthanasia in Texas.

Veterinary Licensing ActAnimal WelfareTexas Board of Veterinary Medical ExaminersJurisdiction DisputeNo-Kill SheltersRegulatory OverreachStatutory InterpretationAmicus CuriaeProperty RightsTexas Occupations Code
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dolenz v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners

Bernard J. Dolenz appealed the dismissal of his suit for judicial review against the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners. The district court had dismissed the case, citing an insufficient motion for rehearing filed by Dolenz with the Board. The appellate court examined whether the motion for rehearing satisfied the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for judicial review. Concluding that Dolenz's motion was not so general as to fail completely, the court determined that the district court erred in granting the Board’s plea to the jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the dismissal order and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

Judicial ReviewAdministrative LawPlea to JurisdictionMotion for RehearingAppellate ProcedureMedical License SuspensionTexas Administrative Procedure ActJurisdictionSufficiency of PleadingsAgency Order Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanchez v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners

Dr. Armando Sanchez, a physician, appealed the district court's judgment affirming the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners' order revoking his medical license and imposing penalties. The disciplinary action was based on findings that Sanchez had solicited the murder of a former patient, M.G., who had previously threatened him following a workers' compensation dispute. Sanchez denied intending murder, claiming he sought to have the patient intimidated or deported by an off-duty police officer, to whom he paid $8,000. The administrative law judge found that Sanchez solicited M.G.'s murder, which constituted unprofessional conduct likely to injure the public. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the Board's findings and rejecting Sanchez's claims of evidentiary and procedural errors.

Medical License RevocationProfessional MisconductSolicitation of MurderWorkers' CompensationDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative LawBoard of Medical ExaminersPhysician DisciplineCriminal Conduct
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 14,146 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