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. Motions Nos. 5 and 7
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1978

Rachlin v. Lewis

This case consolidates two CPLR article 78 proceedings challenging the Insurance Department's regulations on attorneys' fees in no-fault automobile insurance disputes and the constitutionality of certain sections of the Insurance Law. The petitioners sought to rescind 11 NYCRR 65.16 and declare Insurance Law section 671 et seq. unconstitutional. The court ruled that sections 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (ix), which prohibited attorneys from charging clients fees in excess of insurer-paid fees, and 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (vii), concerning the regulation of disbursements, were invalid as they exceeded the scope of the enabling legislation. However, the court upheld the general fee schedule, finding a rational basis for its establishment by the Insurance Department.

Attorney's FeesNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LawRegulatory ChallengeCPLR Article 78Administrative LawConstitutional LawDisbursementsArbitrationAutomobile Insurance
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desmond-Americana v. Jorling

This case involves five CPLR article 78 proceedings and declaratory judgment actions challenging amendments to 6 NYCRR part 325, which mandated multiple pesticide notification devices. The petitioners challenged these regulations, promulgated by the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation, arguing the Commissioner exceeded his authority and that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) failed to comply with statutory procedures. The Appellate Court found two main issues: first, DEC failed to adhere to the mandatory time limits for filing regulations under the State Administrative Procedure Act, rendering the amendments ineffective. Second, DEC violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by issuing negative declarations without preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), despite clear evidence of significant adverse environmental impacts, particularly on the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program. Consequently, the court annulled all amendments to 6 NYCRR part 325, declaring them invalid.

Administrative LawEnvironmental LawRegulatory ComplianceStatutory InterpretationState Administrative Procedure ActState Environmental Quality Review ActEnvironmental Impact StatementPesticide RegulationsIntegrated Pest ManagementAnnulment of Regulations
References
10
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howell v. Karl Koch Erecting Corp.

Jeffrey Howell, a hoisting machine operator, slipped and fell on a crane deck, alleging injuries due to oil and prior complaints about leaks. He brought an action under Labor Law § 241 (6), supported by industrial regulations 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) and 23-8.1 (b) (1), (2), and (5). The court deemed 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (b) (1) (mandatory monthly crane inspection) and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) (slipping hazards relief) specific enough for a § 241 (6) claim. The defendant, Karl Koch Erecting Corp., moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion, ruling that the crane deck was an 'elevated working surface' under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) and that triable issues of fact remained regarding compliance with the regulations.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawWorkplace SafetySlip and FallCrane AccidentIndustrial CodeSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral ContractorConstruction SiteStatutory Interpretation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2000

Penta v. Related Companies

Vincenzo Penta, a carpenter, was injured when struck by a crane hook on the 17th floor of a building under construction. Plaintiffs alleged common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) based on Industrial Code regulations 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (i) and 23-8.2 (c) (3). The Supreme Court initially found a question of fact regarding 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (i), but the Appellate Division determined this regulation was inapplicable as a crane hook is not a 'moving part' requiring guards. The court agreed that 12 NYCRR 23-8.2 (c) (3) was not applicable since the crane was not hoisting a load at the time of the accident. However, the Supreme Court properly denied dismissal of the common-law negligence claim under Labor Law § 200, as defendants failed to establish prima facie that they did not supervise or control the crane's operation. The order was modified to grant dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (i) and affirmed as modified.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentCrane InjuryIndustrial Code ViolationsLabor Law Section 241(6)Common-Law NegligenceLabor Law Section 200Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCollum v. Texas Department of Licensing & Regulation

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 08, 1993

Kelly v. Bane

This case involves an appeal concerning an amendment to the 'Emergency Home Relief' (EHR) program regulation, 18 NYCRR 370.3 (b) (2), which set an income eligibility cap at 125% of the Federal poverty guidelines. Plaintiffs, low-income families and individuals facing eviction, challenged the amendment's validity and the denial of their applications. While the Supreme Court declared the amendment invalid, the Appellate Division modified this, ruling that the amendment itself was not irrational. However, the Appellate Division found the New York State Department of Social Services' (DSS) interpretation and application of the income test—using prospective income rather than income at the time of the emergency—to be arbitrary and capricious. The court affirmed the remand of the cases, directing re-evaluation of eligibility based on a reasonable computation of income during the emergency period.

Emergency Home ReliefAdministrative LawRegulatory InterpretationPoverty GuidelinesEviction PreventionHomelessnessIncome EligibilityArbitrary and CapriciousDeclaratory JudgmentCPLR Article 78
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rought v. Price Chopper Operating Co.

This dissenting opinion argues against applying material hoisting regulations to the process of installing electrical wires by pulling them through conduit. The dissent asserts there is no evidence that the equipment used was lifting or suspending the wires. It highlights that the forklift was used to apply force to pull wires through a 90-degree angle, not to raise them. The opinion refers to the plaintiff's deposition, which clarified that the forklift applied force only after the wire was pushed to the turn, leading to tension that caused the wire to recoil when the rope broke. The dissent concludes that the equipment did not constitute "material hoisting equipment" under 12 NYCRR subpart 23-6, and therefore, the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action should have been dismissed. Stein, J., concurred.

material hoistingelectrical wiresforkliftconduit installationLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)summary judgmentdissenting opinionworkers protectionsafety regulations
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,236 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