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. 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

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

Flores v. Infrastructure Repair Service, LLC

This court opinion addresses motions concerning expert testimony and the amendment of a bill of particulars in a construction site injury case. The defendant, Infrastructure Repair Service, LLC (GC), sought to preclude the plaintiff's expert engineer, Harlan Fair, from testifying on legal conclusions regarding violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) or OSHA regulations, which the court largely granted while allowing testimony on factual matters. The plaintiff cross-moved to amend his bill of particulars to include a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.24 (d) under Labor Law § 241 (6), which was denied due to the regulation's inapplicability to the use of an open tar bucket. However, the plaintiff's cross-motion to include violations of specific OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1926.16, 1926.28, 1926.102) was granted. The court applied the multi-employer doctrine, finding the GC potentially liable for safety conditions affecting subcontractor employees, especially since the GC provided the safety equipment.

Expert WitnessMotion PracticePleadings AmendmentConstruction AccidentWorkplace InjuryLabor Law Section 241(6)Labor Law Section 200OSHA StandardsGeneral Contractor ResponsibilitySubcontractor Employees
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

Daniel Pantoja Garcia appealed a directed verdict in a wrongful death case against Norfolk Southern Railway Company. His wife, Lydia Garcia, an employee of Progress Rail, died in an explosion while torch-cutting a fuel tank on Norfolk Southern's property. Garcia alleged Norfolk Southern was negligent, citing failure to warn, failure to discharge an assumed duty to clean the tank, and failure to comply with OSHA regulations. The trial court granted a directed verdict, finding no duty owed by Norfolk Southern. The appellate court affirmed, concluding there was no evidence Norfolk Southern assumed a duty to clean the tank, lacked superior knowledge of the hazard, or violated OSHA regulations given the contractors' awareness of the fuel.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceDirected VerdictAssumption of DutyDuty to WarnOSHA RegulationsNegligence Per SeFlammable MaterialsRailroad IndustryExplosion Accident
References
9
Case No. W2000-00072-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2000

Donnie Johnson v. Centex

The case involves Donnie Wayne Johnson, Jr., an injured worker, suing Centex Forcum Lannom, Inc., Tyson Foods, Inc., and Coreslab Structures (Okla), Inc. after falling through a roof hole at a construction site. The trial court granted summary judgment to Centex and Tyson, deeming them immune under workers' compensation statutes as general contractors, but denied it to Coreslab, citing OSHA regulations. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Centex and Tyson, confirming their general contractor immunity. However, it reversed the denial of summary judgment for Coreslab, concluding that OSHA regulations did not impose a duty on Coreslab because it no longer controlled the accident site, and found no common law duty. Consequently, the case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Construction accidentWorkplace injurySummary judgment appealGeneral contractor immunityOSHA dutiesNon-delegable dutyControl of workplaceSubcontractor liabilityCommon law negligenceTennessee Court of Appeals
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2002

Sharp v. Scandic Wall Ltd. Partnership

Gil Sharp, an elevator mechanic, sustained injuries on October 31, 1996, when an elevator car he was working on at 40 Wall Street fell 30 feet after he mistakenly cut supporting cables. He sued the premises owner, 40 Wall Street Development Associates, alleging violations of various Labor Law sections and OSHA regulations. The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss all claims, while Sharp cross-moved for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241-a, and to amend his bill of particulars. The court dismissed claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 241-a, 241 (6), and OSHA regulations. However, Sharp was granted summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), with the court finding the defendant liable for failing to provide adequate safety devices.

Elevator accidentPersonal injuryLabor Law § 240(1)Summary judgmentIndustrial CodeWorkplace safetyGravity-related hazardConstruction site accidentFall from heightOwner liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation

Plaintiffs Susan C. Rindfleisch and Warren Rindfleisch sued Samuel, Son & Co., Inc. after Susan contracted mesothelioma from laundering her husband's asbestos-laden work clothes, which he wore while employed by Samuel. Plaintiffs alleged Samuel failed to provide protective equipment and warnings, violating OSHA regulations, leading to Susan's exposure. Samuel moved to dismiss, arguing it owed no duty of care to Susan, citing the precedent of *Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.* The court analyzed common-law negligence principles, emphasizing the necessity of a direct relationship between the defendant and plaintiff for a duty of care, rather than mere foreseeability. It determined that OSHA regulations do not create a private right of action for third parties like Susan Rindfleisch, nor do they alter the established common-law duty analysis. Consequently, the court found no duty of care owed by Samuel to Susan Rindfleisch, and granted Samuel's motion to dismiss the complaint and all cross-claims.

Asbestos ExposureMesotheliomaSecond-hand ExposureDuty of CareNegligenceOSHA RegulationsPrivate Right of ActionMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityCommon Law
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Slesin v. Administrator, Occupational Safety & Health Administration

Louis Slesin filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking documents from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the regulation of nonionizing radiation. OSHA released some documents but withheld portions of others, citing Exemption 5 of FOIA. Slesin cross-moved for an in camera inspection of the redactions and for summary judgment. District Judge Leval denied Slesin's cross-motion and granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court found that the redacted materials, which included staff opinions, recommendations, and internal timetables related to OSHA's deliberative process for developing new health standards, were properly withheld under Exemption 5, which protects internal agency communications reflecting deliberative or policy-making processes. The judge concluded that OSHA had adequately demonstrated that the excised material fell within the lawful exemption.

FOIAExemption 5Deliberative Process PrivilegeSummary JudgmentOccupational Safety and Health AdministrationNonionizing RadiationRegulatory StandardsAgency DeliberationsInformation DisclosureGovernment Transparency
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 914 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