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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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. 03-10-00160-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2010

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

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

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

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

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

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. W2003-02036-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2004

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case addresses Sara Beth Stovall's claim for survivor's benefits from the City of Memphis retirement plan following her husband's death. Ms. Stovall participated in two marriage ceremonies: one in November 1998 without a license, and another in December 1998 with a license. The City denied benefits, citing its requirement for a lawful spouse for at least two years preceding death and non-recognition of common-law marriage. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the November 1998 ceremony invalid due to the missing marriage license, thereby disqualifying Ms. Stovall from the two-year eligibility. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Tennessee law mandates a marriage license for a valid marriage and that Marriage by Estoppel did not apply.

Marriage license requirementStatutory interpretationSummary judgmentSurvivor benefitsRetirement plan eligibilityTennessee lawMarriage by EstoppelLawful marriageCohabitationSpousal benefits
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

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
Case No. 12-0657
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2015

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reviewed a case where Donna Barber (Harlow) sought death benefits after her ex-husband, Gary Harlow, died from a work injury. Despite a 'remarriage' ceremony, they lacked a marriage license and knew of this deficiency for years. The trial court initially found Ms. Harlow a 'lawful wife' and awarded lump-sum death benefits. However, the appellate panel reversed, ruling that Ms. Harlow was not a surviving spouse under Tennessee's workers' compensation law due to the deliberate failure to obtain a marriage license. The court emphasized that it could not extend the definition of 'surviving spouse' to individuals who knowingly disregard statutory marriage requirements, remanding the case for dismissal.

Workers' CompensationSurviving SpouseMarriage LicenseCohabitationDeath BenefitsStatutory InterpretationDependencyLump Sum AwardAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Carolyn McCollum sued the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (Department) after being terminated from the Texas Cosmetology Commission (Commission), alleging race, age, disability discrimination, and retaliation, as well as a hostile work environment. She initially filed complaints with the EEOC and TWC. The trial court granted the Department's plea to the jurisdiction, asserting McCollum's federal claims were barred by sovereign immunity and state claims were untimely due to delayed filing and service. On appeal, McCollum abandoned her federal claims, focusing on her state law claims under the Texas Labor Code. The appellate court ruled that the 60-day period for filing and serving suit under Texas Labor Code § 21.254 is not a jurisdictional requirement, distinguishing it from other mandatory jurisdictional provisions. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing McCollum's state claims to proceed.

Employment discriminationRetaliationHostile work environmentSovereign immunityPlea to the jurisdictionTexas Labor CodeTimely filingTimely serviceJurisdictional requirementsAppellate review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2000

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case concerns an appeal by the Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General from a district court judgment that awarded Bandag Licensing Corporation (BLC) recovery of franchise taxes paid under protest for the years 1992-96, along with attorney's fees. BLC, an Iowa corporation, held a certificate of authority to do business in Texas but had no physical presence or conducted intrastate business in the state, operating solely through interstate commerce. The Comptroller's assessment of franchise taxes, based solely on BLC's certificate of authority, was challenged as a violation of the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, as well as the Texas Tax Code. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that BLC's mere possession of a certificate of authority did not establish a "substantial nexus" with Texas required by the Commerce Clause, nor did it satisfy the minimum contacts for the Due Process Clause. The court also upheld the award of attorney's fees to BLC, ruling that the amended Tax Code § 112.108, which prohibits such fees in declaratory judgment actions against the state, was unconstitutional as an unreasonable financial barrier to court access.

Franchise TaxCommerce ClauseDue Process ClauseSubstantial NexusPhysical PresenceDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesGovernmental ImmunityTaxation LawConstitutional Law
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 635 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