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. 03-17-00357-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2017

George Allibone, M.D. v. Scott Freshour, in His Official Capacity as the Interim Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board Juanita Garner, Investigator of the Texas Medical Board And the Texas Medical Board

George Allibone, M.D., appealed the denial of his petition for a protective order against an administrative subpoena issued by the Texas Medical Board. The subpoena sought patient medical and billing records for an investigation into complaints against Allibone. He contended the trial court erred by failing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law and by abusing its discretion in finding the subpoena reasonable and relevant. The appellate court found Allibone waived his complaint regarding missing findings. It also concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion, citing the Board's need for complete records for investigation and Allibone's failure to prove the unconstitutionality of the statute requiring compliance. The trial court's order was affirmed.

Medical Board InvestigationAdministrative SubpoenaPhysician RecordsConstitutional RightsDue ProcessJudicial Review of Agency ActionAbuse of DiscretionFourth AmendmentTexas LawProfessional Licensing
References
50
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. 03-18-00232-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2018

Joseph Cotropia M.D. v. Texas Medical Board and in His Official Capacity Only, Sherif Zaafran, President of the Texas Medical Board

Appellant Joseph Cotropia, M.D., challenged the Texas Medical Board's revocation of his license to practice medicine. The Board's decision stemmed from his failure to adequately supervise advanced practice nurses at two pain management clinics, resulting in substandard patient care and operation of an uncertified clinic. Dr. Cotropia argued against being held strictly liable for the APNs' actions, the clinic's certification status, the admissibility of expert testimony, and alleged due process violations. The appeals court reviewed the Board's findings under a substantial-evidence standard. Ultimately, the court found no error in the district court's judgment and affirmed the revocation of his license.

Medical License RevocationPhysician SupervisionAdvanced Practice NursesPain Management ClinicStandard of CareMedical Practice ActAdministrative LawDue ProcessExpert TestimonyTexas Medical Board
References
15
Case No. 18-1223
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2021

Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners Patrick Fortner, in His Official Capacity as the Board's Executive Director And Texas Chiropractic Association v. Texas Medical Association

This decade-long case addresses the legal boundary between chiropractic and medical practices in Texas. The Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners (the Board) issued rules defining the musculoskeletal system and subluxation complex to include nerves, and also authorized chiropractors to perform Vestibular-Ocular-Nystagmus Testing (VONT). The Texas Medical Association (TMA) challenged these rules, arguing they allowed chiropractors to engage in the unlicensed practice of medicine. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that the Board's rules are valid. The Court concluded that the rules, read in context with other referral requirements, appropriately clarify the scope of chiropractic practice without infringing upon medical neurology, and that VONT can be used by chiropractors for diagnostic purposes within their defined scope.

Chiropractic PracticeMedical RegulationScope of PracticeAdministrative LawAgency RulemakingTexas Supreme CourtMusculoskeletal SystemSubluxation ComplexVONT TestingStatutory Interpretation
References
31
Case No. 15-0092
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Medical Board and Scott Freshour, in His Official Capacity as General Counsel of the Texas Medical Board v. Teladoc, Inc.

Teladoc, Inc. argues against the Texas Medical Board's (TMB) petition for review, asserting that the Court of Appeals correctly ruled a June 2011 TMB letter constituted an invalid 'rule' under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The letter mandated a 'face-to-face' physical examination for establishing a physician-patient relationship, effectively amending an existing rule (22 Tex. Admin. Code § 190.8(1)(L)) without proper notice-and-comment rulemaking. Teladoc contends the letter's departure from the rule's plain text (using 'such as' versus 'including') justified the appellate court's finding. Teladoc further highlights TMB's subsequent initiation of formal rulemaking to amend the rule, implicitly acknowledging the procedural necessity.

Administrative LawRulemaking ProceduresAPADeclaratory JudgmentJudicial ReviewPhysician-Patient RelationshipTelemedicineMedical BoardRegulatory AuthorityFace-to-face Examination
References
25
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. 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. 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. 03-07-00558-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2009

John Bruce Payne, D.O. v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners

John Bruce Payne, D.O., appealed a district court judgment affirming the Texas Medical Board's order revoking his medical license. The Board's disciplinary action stemmed from Payne's treatment of patient J.F., specifically allegations of performing unnecessary surgery, over-medication, and inadequate post-operative care arrangements. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found Payne violated several provisions of the Medical Practice Act, leading to the recommendation of license revocation. The district court affirmed the Board's decision, and the Court of Appeals, reviewing under the substantial evidence standard, upheld the district court's judgment. Consequently, the revocation of Payne's medical license was affirmed.

Medical License RevocationProfessional MisconductNegligent Medical CareAdministrative LawSubstantial Evidence ReviewDue ProcessPhysician DisciplineTexas Medical BoardNeurosurgeryPost-operative Care
References
16
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
Showing 1-10 of 27,942 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