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. 15-25-00033-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2025

Edith Okechukwu Omietimi v. Texas Board of Nursing

This case concerns Edith Omietimi's appeal against the Texas Board of Nursing's (BON) denial of her Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) license renewal. The denial stemmed from an FBI investigation, "Operation Nightingale," which uncovered a fraudulent nursing diploma scheme involving Ms. Omietimi's nursing school, Sacred Heart Houston (SHH). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found no personal fraud by Omietimi but concluded that SHH's program was unapproved and did not provide education substantially equivalent to Texas standards, recommending the denial of her license renewal. The district court affirmed BON's Final Order. BON argues that the decision is supported by substantial evidence and that license renewal is a discretionary act vital for protecting public safety due to Omietimi's inadequate training.

Nursing LicenseLicense RenewalFraudulent Diploma SchemeOperation NightingaleVocational NurseNursing Education StandardsAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewDue ProcessProfessional Licensure
References
26
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yeldell v. Holiday Hills Retirement and Nursing Center, Inc.

Bertha Yeldell, a vocational nurse for non-subscriber employer Holiday Hills Retirement and Nursing Center, Inc., suffered second and third-degree burns after a coffee urn overturned while she was making a personal telephone call at her duty station. The trial court awarded damages to Yeldell, finding her injuries to be in the course and scope of employment. The court of appeals reversed this judgment. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals, affirming the trial court's decision, ruling that personal telephone calls, like other acts for comfort, can be incidental to employment and thus compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Additionally, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's exclusion of a witness not disclosed during discovery, stating Holiday Hills failed to supplement interrogatory answers as required by Rule 168(7) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentPersonal ActTelephone CallDiscovery RulesInterrogatory SanctionsWitness ExclusionTexas Civil ProcedureNon-subscriber Employer
References
4
Case No. 13-11-00068-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2012

Eugenio Espinoza Martinez v. State

The Texas State Board of Nursing appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction concerning claims raised by Bernardino Pedraza Jr. Pedraza had his vocational nursing license revoked by the Board but filed for judicial review and injunctive relief prematurely, before exhausting administrative remedies. The appellate court concluded that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Pedraza's petition for judicial review and his defamation claim due to sovereign immunity. However, the court found that Pedraza's due process claim, while insufficiently pleaded, did not have incurable defects in jurisdiction and should be given an opportunity to be amended. The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction regarding the judicial review petition and defamation claim, and remanded the due process claim for further proceedings.

JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesExhaustion of RemediesJudicial ReviewNursing License RevocationDue ProcessDefamationSovereign ImmunityTexas State Board of Nursing
References
11
Case No. NO. 01-13-00108-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2014

Iris Gonzalez v. Diversicare Leasing Corp D/B/A Afton Oaks Nursing Care Center A/K/A Afton Oaks Nursing and Rehab Center Diversicare Afton Oaks, LLC.

Iris Gonzalez, an employee at a nursing home, sued her employer, Afton Oaks, for personal injuries sustained after tripping over crates on an employee pathway. The trial court dismissed her lawsuit for failure to file an expert report under the Texas Medical Liability Act, categorizing it as a health care liability claim. Gonzalez appealed, arguing it was an ordinary negligence claim unrelated to health care. The Court of Appeals, relying on a recent decision in Williams v. Riverside General Hospital, Inc., held that a 'garden-variety slip-and-fall claim that is completely untethered from the provision of health care' does not constitute a health care liability safety claim. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Slip and FallOrdinary NegligenceTexas Medical Liability ActHealth Care Liability ClaimEmployer LiabilityNursing HomePremises LiabilityWorkers' CompensationExpert ReportAppellate Procedure
References
4
Case No. 2024-40-5803
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 2025

Reed, Kimberly v. Critical Nurse Staffing, LLC

In this interlocutory appeal, the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed a trial court's order concerning an employee's work-related injuries. The employee, Kimberly Reed, reported a left arm/shoulder injury and later sought treatment for head/face/TMJ complaints. The trial court had ordered the employer, Critical Nurse Staffing, LLC, to provide a second opinion for shoulder surgery and a panel of otolaryngologists for the TMJ condition. The Appeals Board affirmed the order for a second opinion on shoulder surgery, finding the authorized physician's reports constituted a recommendation for surgery. However, the Board reversed the order for the otolaryngologist panel, concluding there was insufficient evidence at this stage to prove the TMJ condition was causally related to the work injury. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation AppealSecond Opinion Medical ReviewShoulder InjuryRotator Cuff TearTemporomandibular Joint DisorderCausation of InjuryMedical Treatment AuthorizationInterlocutory AppealEvidentiary StandardProcedural Compliance
References
10
Case No. 02-24-00248-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2025

Granbury SNF LLC D/B/A Granbury Rehab & Nursing, Advanced HCS LLC D/B/A Advanced Healthcare Solutions, and Granbury Rehab & Nursing GS LLC v. Natalie Jackson

Natalie Jackson sued Granbury SNF LLC, Advanced HCS LLC, and Granbury Rehab & Nursing GS LLC for unlawful retaliation after reporting resident abuse. A jury found in Jackson's favor, awarding compensatory and exemplary damages. On appeal, the Appellants challenged the sufficiency of evidence for Granbury GS's involvement, mental anguish damages, exemplary damages for reprehensible conduct, and the individual capping of punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, largely finding that Appellants failed to preserve most issues. Specifically, the court affirmed the exemplary damages against Granbury GS and the award of contingent appellate attorney's fees, citing sufficient evidence of malice and proper calculation methods for fees.

Unlawful RetaliationAbuse ReportingExemplary DamagesMental Anguish DamagesLegal SufficiencyAppellate Attorney's FeesPreservation of ErrorVice-Principal DoctrineTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Health & Safety Code
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 1988

In re Nurse Care Registry, Inc.

Nurse Care Registry, Inc., an agency providing health care personnel, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that classified its workers as employees rather than independent contractors, making Nurse Care liable for unemployment insurance contributions. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence of Nurse Care's control over key aspects of the services provided by the workers. This control included client contact, worker wages, and billing/collection, which were deemed indicative of an employer-employee relationship. The court relied on precedent establishing that such control warrants an employment finding, despite workers having full-time positions elsewhere and the agency not directly supervising daily work.

unemployment insuranceemployer-employee relationshipindependent contractoradministrative lawappellate reviewlabor lawagency staffingcontrol testsubstantial evidencehealth care industry
References
4
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Justice Boyd concurs with the judgment that a Texas statute requiring eyebrow threaders to obtain an esthetician's license is unconstitutional. However, he disagrees with the Court's adoption of a new 'unreasonably burdensome that it becomes oppressive' test for the Texas Constitution's 'due course of law' provision. Instead, he believes a law violates due course of law only if it is 'arbitrary and unreasonable, and therefore oppressive, because it has no rational relationship to a legitimate government interest.' He finds the esthetician's license requirement for eyebrow threaders to be arbitrary, unreasonable, and oppressive as it lacks a rational relationship to public health and safety, despite agreeing that sanitation training is rational. Boyd emphasizes that courts should not 'legislate from the bench' but must exercise their authority to interpret the Constitution when a law is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. He concludes that imposing the existing esthetician licensing scheme on eyebrow threaders is not rationally related to the legitimate government interest in promoting public health and safety.

Constitutional LawDue Course of LawEconomic RegulationOccupational LicensingEsthetician LicenseEyebrow ThreadingRational Basis ReviewArbitrary and UnreasonableTexas ConstitutionSubstantive Due Process
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,700 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