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. 03-12-00293-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2013

Southwest Pharmacy Solutions, Inc. D/B/A American Pharmacies v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Thomas Suehs, Solely in His Official Capacity as Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission

Southwest Pharmacy Solutions, Inc. d/b/a American Pharmacies appealed a trial court's judgment granting a plea to the jurisdiction filed by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and its Executive Commissioner. American Pharmacies challenged HHSC's rulemaking obligations and specific rules related to pharmacy benefits under the Texas Medicaid managed care (MMC) program. They argued that HHSC failed to regulate reimbursement rates for pharmacies and did not comply with statutory requirements for analyzing the economic impact on small businesses. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that HHSC was not obligated to set reimbursement rates under the MMC model and had substantially complied with the relevant government code regarding small business impact. The court also determined that American Pharmacies lacked a justiciable interest as their economic losses stemmed from legislative changes rather than the challenged rules.

Medicaid Managed CarePharmacy BenefitsReimbursement RatesAdministrative Procedure ActDeclaratory JudgmentPlea to the JurisdictionUltra ViresStatutory ConstructionSmall Business ImpactTexas Court of Appeals
References
37
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southwest Pharmacy Solutions, Inc. v. Texas Health & Human Services Commission

American Pharmacies appealed a trial court's judgment that granted a plea to the jurisdiction to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and Thomas Suehs, Executive Commissioner of HHSC, and denied American Pharmacies' requests for declaratory and injunctive relief. American Pharmacies challenged HHSC's rulemaking obligations and certain rules related to pharmacy benefits under Texas’s Medicaid managed care (MMC) program. Specifically, they argued that HHSC failed to regulate reimbursement rates and comply with small business impact analysis requirements. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that HHSC was not obligated to regulate pharmacy reimbursement rates under MMC and had substantially complied with the government code regarding economic impact analysis. The court also found that American Pharmacies failed to assert a justiciable interest.

Medicaid Managed CarePharmacy BenefitsRulemaking AuthorityPlea to JurisdictionDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefEconomic Impact AnalysisSmall Business ImpactUltra ViresStatutory Interpretation
References
121
Case No. 03-15-00348-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Todd Enright v. Asclepius Panacea, LLC Asclepius Panacea GP, LLC Daily Pharmacy, LLC Daily Pharmacy GP, LLC And Toth Enterprises II, P .A. D/B/A Victory Medical Center

Todd Enright appealed a district court's denial of his special appearance in a case brought by Asclepius Panacea, LLC et al. (VMC). The dispute originated from VMC's equity purchase of Texas pharmacies from QVL. Enright, acting for QVL, allegedly made fraudulent misrepresentations during negotiations concerning drug inventory and handling of insurance receipts. Post-acquisition, Enright reportedly controlled QVL's finances, directing payments and wrongfully withholding VMC's funds. VMC's claims against Enright include common law fraud, Texas Securities Act violations, tortious interference, conversion, money had and received, and a request for an accounting, asserting his actions establish sufficient minimum contacts with Texas for personal jurisdiction.

Personal JurisdictionFraudTexas Securities ActTortious InterferenceConversionEquitable AccountingSpecial AppearanceMinimum ContactsFiduciary Shield DoctrineAppellate Procedure
References
34
Case No. KP-0480
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2025

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion: KP-0480

Enacted by House Bill 1763 and House Bill 1919, subchapter M and subchapter L of chapter 1369 of the Texas Insurance Code regulate certain contracts with pharmacists and pharmacies and certain referral and solicitation practices concerning affiliated providers. Under United States Supreme Court precedent, neither subchapter has an impermissible connection with ERISA plans as they do not dictate plan choices or add requirements to beneficiary status. The two subchapters also do not refer to ERISA plans as they neither exclusively apply to those plans nor are ERISA plans essential to the laws’ operation. Therefore, a court would likely conclude that ERISA does not preempt either subchapter. In addition, nothing in the language of either subchapter limits their applicability to plans domiciled in Texas. Thus, a court would likely conclude that both subchapters are enforceable against an issuer or PBM that satisfy the statutory definitions and administer a plan covering Texas residents or contracting with Texas pharmacy providers regardless of where the plan is domiciled.

ERISA PreemptionTexas Insurance CodePharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs)Health Benefit PlansState Law EnforceabilityHouse Bill 1763House Bill 1919Regulatory CompliancePharmacy Reimbursement RatesReferral Practices
References
20
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

Innoviant Pharmacy, Inc. v. Morganstern

Innoviant Pharmacy, Inc. sued its former sales executive, Max Morganstern, for unfair competition and breach of a non-compete agreement after he joined a competitor, Summit Pharmacy, Inc., and solicited Innoviant's customer referral sources. Innoviant sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Morganstern from contacting 114 key New York referral sources. The court found Innoviant unlikely to succeed on its breach of contract claim because the employment agreement was deemed unenforceable due to a later signed document. However, the court found Innoviant likely to succeed on its unfair competition claim, as Morganstern misappropriated a list of potential referral sources and business cards. Consequently, the court granted the preliminary injunction, restraining Morganstern from contacting the specified referral sources until February 24, 2006, conditioned on Innoviant posting a $100,000 security bond.

Preliminary InjunctionUnfair CompetitionBreach of ContractNon-compete ClauseTrade SecretsCustomer ListsConfidential InformationEmployment AgreementSales ExecutiveReferral Sources
References
50
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03820 [195 AD3d 776]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2021

21st Century Pharmacy v. American Intl. Group

21st Century Pharmacy appealed a Supreme Court order that dismissed its declaratory judgment action against American International Group (AIG) and the New York Workers' Compensation Board (WCB). The pharmacy sought a declaration that it could pursue payment for prescription bills in a plenary court proceeding, rather than solely through the WCB, and also sought a monetary judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, asserting the WCB had exclusive subject matter jurisdiction. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, clarifying that while the WCB holds primary jurisdiction over Workers' Compensation Law applicability, it does not possess exclusive jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for a determination on the merits of AIG's motion to dismiss.

Declaratory JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionExclusive JurisdictionPrescription BillsAppellate ProcedureRemittalPharmacy RightsCourt Jurisdiction
References
8
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,009 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