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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Grief Bros.

This employment discrimination case, filed July 1, 2002, involves Michael Sabo (Plaintiff) who alleges constructive discharge based on sexual harassment and claims severe emotional pain and suffering. The Defendant moved for a mental examination of Sabo under Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 and to compel the production of his medical records. Sabo alleged severe humiliation, anxiety, depression, loss of self-esteem, sleeplessness, and weight gain, and admitted to a history of depression, past suicide attempts, and current psychiatric treatment with prescribed medications. The court granted the Defendant's motions, finding that Sabo had placed his mental condition in controversy due to the nature and severity of his claims and his medical history, justifying both the examination and the production of relevant medical records. The court also granted Defendant's request for costs associated with compelling the medical records, but denied the request for costs related to the Rule 35 motion itself, and denied Plaintiff's request for counsel or recording during the examination.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeEmotional DistressMental ExaminationRule 35Medical RecordsDepressionSuicide AttemptsCompensatory Damages
References
11
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
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. 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. 03-14-00396-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2015

Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners and Yvette Yarbrough, Executive Director v. Texas Medical Association

The Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners (TBCE) and its Executive Director, Yvette Yarbrough, are appealing a decision from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas. They have filed a motion for panel rehearing and/or en banc rehearing. The appellants argue that the Court's previous memorandum opinion contains three fundamental errors: misstating appellate issues, resolving subject-matter jurisdiction using a prohibited method, and misstating the administrative rule at issue. They contend that the Court misunderstood their challenge to the trial court's jurisdiction regarding the Texas Medical Association's (TMA) claim to invalidate a provision of the Scope of Practice Rule (22 Tex. Admin. Code § 75.17(d)(1)) concerning chiropractors' authority to "diagnose" diseases. TBCE asserts that this claim is a collateral attack on a prior judgment in TMA I where the same issue was litigated and decided in TBCE's favor. They argue that subject-matter jurisdiction should be decided on a claim-by-claim basis and that the Court erred in its interpretation of the administrative rule number. They are requesting an opportunity for oral argument due to the significance of the issues for chiropractic practice in Texas.

Workers' CompensationChiropractic Scope of PracticeMedical AssociationCollateral AttackSubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative LawRule InvalidationTexas LawAppellate ProcedureMotion for Rehearing
References
6
Case No. 03-10-00673-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2012

Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners, Glenn Parker, Executive Director, and Texas Chiropractic Association v. Texas Medical Association, Texas Medical Board, and the State of Texas

This case concerns an appeal by the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners (TBCE) and the Texas Chiropractic Association (TCA) challenging a district court's judgment. The district court invalidated portions of TBCE's administrative rule defining the scope of chiropractic practice, specifically regarding manipulation under anesthesia (MUA), needle electromyography (needle EMG), and certain diagnostic activities. The Court of Appeals affirmed the invalidation of rules permitting needle EMG and MUA, finding them to be "incisive" and "surgical" procedures respectively, and thus exceeding the statutory scope of chiropractic. However, the appellate court reversed the invalidation of rules allowing chiropractors to make certain diagnoses concerning the biomechanical condition of the spine or musculoskeletal system and subluxation complex, concluding these were within the statutory scope. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding alternative constitutional challenges.

Chiropractic regulationMedical scope of practiceAdministrative rulesStatutory interpretationNeedle EMGManipulation Under AnesthesiaChiropractic diagnosisTexas lawHealth professional licensingJudicial review
References
98
Case No. 03-08-00288-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2008

Texas Society of Professional Engineers v. Texas Board of Architectural Examiners and Cathy Hendricks, Executive Director

The Texas Society of Professional Engineers appealed the trial court's partial grant of a plea to the jurisdiction filed by the Texas Board of Architectural Examiners (TBAE) and its Executive Director. The Society sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the TBAE from initiating enforcement proceedings against licensed engineers for alleged violations of the Architecture Practice Act, asserting engineers are exempt and TBAE lacks jurisdiction. The trial court granted the plea in part, ruling it lacked jurisdiction over most claims except those challenging TBAE rules. The Court of Appeals affirmed this order, concluding the Society lacked associational standing to pursue the broad relief requested under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. This was because such claims required a fact-intensive, case-by-case analysis of individual engineers' conduct, not pure issues of law.

JurisdictionAssociational StandingDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefPlea to the JurisdictionProfessional LicensingArchitectureEngineeringAdministrative LawRegulatory Authority
References
14
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. 2017 NY Slip Op 00959 [147 AD3d 815]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Gonsalves v. 35 W. 54 Realty Corp.

The plaintiffs, Andrew Gonsalves and Shahazad M. Rasheed, sustained personal injuries at a construction site managed by Geiger Construction Company, Inc. and owned by 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. when a parapet wall collapsed during the lowering of a power washer. They sued 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. and Perimeter Bridge & Scaffold Co. for Labor Law violations. 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. then initiated third-party actions against Geiger Construction for contribution and common-law indemnification. After a jury found Geiger Construction negligent, the Supreme Court denied Geiger Construction's motions for judgment as a matter of law. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed these judgments, concluding that there was no rational basis for the jury to find Geiger Construction negligent, as 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence against them. Consequently, the third-party causes of action against Geiger Construction were dismissed.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawNegligenceContributionIndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewJudgment as a Matter of LawJury Verdict
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 12,553 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