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. 03-05-00032-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2007

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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. 04-09-00148-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2009

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

Central Texas Orthopedic Products, Inc. (CTOP) sued Andrew Espinoza for breach of contract and fiduciary duty, and Howmedica Osteonics Corp. d/b/a Stryker Orthopedics (Stryker) for tortious interference. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Espinoza and Stryker, and a jury found Espinoza breached fiduciary duty but awarded no damages. On appeal, CTOP challenged the summary judgments and attorney's fees awarded to Espinoza. The appellate court found the trial court erred in applying the unclean hands doctrine to CTOP's claims as the alleged misconduct was separate from the disputed contract. The court also found a genuine issue of material fact regarding Espinoza's entitlement to compensation due to his alleged breach of fiduciary duty. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Breach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyTortious InterferenceSummary JudgmentUnclean Hands DoctrineNon-Compete AgreementCompensation AgreementTexas Payday ActAppellate ReviewReversed and Remanded
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Bernard J. Dolenz appealed the dismissal of his suit for judicial review against the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners. The district court had dismissed the case, citing an insufficient motion for rehearing filed by Dolenz with the Board. The appellate court examined whether the motion for rehearing satisfied the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for judicial review. Concluding that Dolenz's motion was not so general as to fail completely, the court determined that the district court erred in granting the Board’s plea to the jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the dismissal order and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

Judicial ReviewAdministrative LawPlea to JurisdictionMotion for RehearingAppellate ProcedureMedical License SuspensionTexas Administrative Procedure ActJurisdictionSufficiency of PleadingsAgency Order Review
References
26
Case No. 03-93-00229-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 1995

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

The Texas State Board of Medical Examiners suspended Bernard J. Dolenz' medical license. Dolenz sought judicial review, but the district court dismissed his suit, asserting it lacked jurisdiction due to an insufficient motion for rehearing filed with the Board. Dolenz appealed this dismissal, arguing the district court erred in its jurisdictional finding. The appellate court examined the requirements for a motion for rehearing under the Administrative Procedure Act and found Dolenz' motion was not entirely deficient. Consequently, the appellate court determined the district court improperly granted the plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the case, thus reversing the order and remanding for further proceedings.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewPlea to JurisdictionMotion for RehearingSufficiency of MotionMedical License SuspensionTexas State Board of Medical ExaminersAppellate ProcedureJurisdictional DefectsStatutory Compliance
References
24
Case No. M2010-01582-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2011

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

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. 03-14-00774-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2015

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 1967

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

The petitioner, a school social worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to compel the respondent to provide copies of medical and other reports that led to an unsatisfactory rating in an examination for a Supervisor of School Social Workers license. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially dismissed the petition. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, granting the petition to the extent of directing the respondent to furnish the reports to a physician designated by the petitioner, rather than directly to the petitioner. The case was remanded to the Special Term for further proceedings, including a determination on allowing the petitioner more time to appeal the unsatisfactory rating.

Article 78 CPLRLicense ExaminationSchool Social WorkerMedical ReportsDisclosureAdministrative AppealUnsatisfactory RatingAppellate ReversalRemandPhysician Disclosure
References
3
Case No. 03-09-00342-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2009

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

Donald Little, an attorney, sought admission to the State Bar of Texas but was found unfit by the Texas Board of Law Examiners (TBLE) due to character issues. Little mistakenly filed an appeal of TBLE's decision in a Travis County county court, despite jurisdiction resting solely with Travis County district courts. The county court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but controversially ordered it transferred to a district court. TBLE appealed this transfer order, contending the county court lacked authority to transfer a case over which it had no jurisdiction. The appellate court concurred, vacating the transfer order and dismissing the entire case for want of jurisdiction, emphasizing that a court without jurisdiction can only dismiss.

AppealJurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionTransfer of CaseCounty CourtDistrict CourtTravis CountyTexas Board of Law ExaminersDonald LittleAppellate Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Dr. Armando Sanchez, a physician, appealed the district court's judgment affirming the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners' order revoking his medical license and imposing penalties. The disciplinary action was based on findings that Sanchez had solicited the murder of a former patient, M.G., who had previously threatened him following a workers' compensation dispute. Sanchez denied intending murder, claiming he sought to have the patient intimidated or deported by an off-duty police officer, to whom he paid $8,000. The administrative law judge found that Sanchez solicited M.G.'s murder, which constituted unprofessional conduct likely to injure the public. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the Board's findings and rejecting Sanchez's claims of evidentiary and procedural errors.

Medical License RevocationProfessional MisconductSolicitation of MurderWorkers' CompensationDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative LawBoard of Medical ExaminersPhysician DisciplineCriminal Conduct
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Petitioners filed a notice of claim after their six-year-old daughter was allegedly sexually assaulted on a school bus. The respondent, a school district, subsequently served a notice to orally examine the infant and petitioners. While petitioners submitted to examination, they refused to produce their child. The Supreme Court initially granted petitioners’ motion to strike the notice to examine the infant, deeming prior informal interviews with the child as substantial compliance. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing that General Municipal Law § 50-h mandates a pre-action examination as a condition precedent. The court ruled that the prior interviews did not fulfill the statutory purpose and that the child's submission to an examination is required. Due to the child's young age, the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court to conduct a hearing to determine the child's competency to testify under oath before the examination takes place.

General Municipal Law § 50-hEducation Law § 3813Infant examinationSexual assault claimCondition precedentAppellate procedureCompetency hearingSchool district liabilityPre-action discoveryOath requirement
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 2,730 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