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. 03-11-00057-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. 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. 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

National Propane Gas Ass'n v. United States Department of Transportation

This case involves a challenge by plaintiffs National Propane Gas Association, Northwest Butane Gas Co., and Huffhines Gas, Inc. against the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA). The plaintiffs sought to stay and enjoin the enforcement of RSPA's "Final Rule" and its interpretation of the "Attendance Regulation," alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Both regulations pertain to safety requirements for cargo tank motor vehicles transporting liquefied compressed gases, particularly concerning emergency discharge control systems and operator presence during unloading. The court sided with the defendants, upholding both the Final Rule and RSPA's interpretation of the Attendance Regulation. The ruling affirmed that RSPA's actions were within its statutory authority, were not arbitrary or capricious, and complied with the RFA, based on reasoned decision-making in response to widespread industry noncompliance and potential safety risks.

Regulatory challengeadministrative lawhazardous materialscargo tanksliquefied gasespropanepublic safetyemergency discharge controloperator attendanceRSPA
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ben Robinson Co. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This appeal addresses whether the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission's Extra-Hazardous Employer Program is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). The Ben Robinson Company was designated extra-hazardous following a fatal workplace accident, leading to mandated safety inspections and an accident prevention plan. The Commission's arguments for dismissing the case, including mootness and the exclusivity of the Administrative Procedure Act, were rejected. The court concluded that the Program, as currently administered, is preempted by the OSH Act where it regulates workplace safety issues already covered by federal standards. The decision reverses the trial court's summary judgment and remands the case for a determination of costs and attorney's fees.

Occupational Safety and Health ActOSH Act PreemptionExtra-Hazardous Employer ProgramTexas Workers’ Compensation CommissionWorkplace SafetyState RegulationFederal PreemptionMootness DoctrineDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's Fees
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Safety Cas. Co. v. Malvoux

Randolph Malvoux, an employee of Magnolia Petroleum Company, sued Safety Casualty Company for Workman’s Compensation due to an alleged accidental injury from overheating during employment on January 29, 1946. The jury found that Malvoux sustained an injury by overheating in the course of employment, which caused paresis, and that this injury resulted in total and permanent incapacity. The appellant, Safety Casualty Company, appealed the judgment, arguing insufficient evidence. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, including medical testimony supporting the link between overheating and the activation of syphilis leading to paresis, and found it sufficient. The court also upheld the trial judge's discretion in refusing to reopen the case for additional testimony. Ultimately, all of the appellant's points were overruled, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationOverheating InjuryParesisSyphilis AggravationAccidental InjuryTotal IncapacityPermanent DisabilityEmployer LiabilityMedical TestimonyAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Relco, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Thomas Doss and Releo, Inc. (plaintiffs) filed an action seeking to enjoin the Consumers Product Safety Commission (CPSC) from enforcing certain sections of the Consumers Product Safety Act against their product, the "Wel-Dex" arc welder, and requested a three-judge panel for constitutional questions. The CPSC had issued a public warning about the Wel-Dex after an investigation, despite the plaintiffs' attempts to secure a prior hearing. The plaintiffs challenged the CPSC's delegation of authority for issuing such warnings and sought pre-enforcement judicial review. The court, presided over by District Judge Noel, determined that the plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies and that the matter was not ripe for judicial review. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the cause was dismissed.

Consumer Product Safety ActAdministrative LawAgency DiscretionSubdelegation of AuthorityPublic WarningPre-enforcement ReviewExhaustion of Administrative RemediesRipeness for ReviewThree-Judge CourtDue Process
References
26
Case No. M2001-00174-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2001

Terminix International Co. v. Department of Labor

This case concerns an appeal regarding the jurisdictional authority of the Tennessee Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (TOSHA), to conduct safety inspections and enforce regulations for pesticide applicators. Appellants Terminix International Company, L.P. and TruGreen, Inc., L.P., challenged TOSHA's jurisdiction, asserting preemption by federal laws like FIFRA and FOSH. The Chancery Court for Davidson County affirmed TOSHA's authority, noting that state agriculture regulations focus on pesticide labeling and applicator licensing, not employee workplace safety. The Tennessee Court of Appeals upheld this decision, concluding that Congress did not intend to fully preempt state regulation of pesticide use in the workplace, thus affirming TOSHA's jurisdiction and obligation to ensure worker health and safety from pesticide-related risks.

Pesticide RegulationOccupational Safety and HealthFederal PreemptionState JurisdictionPersonal Protective Equipment (PPE)TOSHA (Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Act)FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act)Workplace Safety InspectionsAdministrative LawJudicial Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Terminix International Co. v. Tennessee Department of Labor

This case involves an appeal by Terminix International Company, L.P. and TruGreen, Inc., L.P. challenging the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (TOSHA) to conduct safety inspections and enforce regulations concerning pesticide applicators. The appellants argued that federal laws, specifically the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act (FOSH), preempted TOSHA's authority. Both the Chancery Court of Davidson County and this appellate court affirmed the decision that TOSHA has jurisdiction. The Court concluded that Congress did not intend to fully occupy the field of pesticide regulation, particularly regarding their use in the workplace, and that states are permitted to regulate pesticide use. Therefore, TOSHA retains its obligation and authority to protect the health and safety of workers from risks associated with pesticide use in the workplace.

Pesticide SafetyWorkplace SafetyFederal PreemptionState Regulatory AuthorityOccupational HealthPersonal Protective EquipmentAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewFIFRAFOSH Act
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eatherly Constraction Co. v. Department of Labor & Workforce Development

Eatherly Construction Company appealed a finding by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission that it violated an OSHA regulation by allowing an employee to enter an unprotected excavated trench. The company argued that its foreman, Denzil Evans, who entered the trench, was not an 'employee' under controlling regulations, or alternatively, that his actions constituted employee misconduct. The Davidson County Chancery Court affirmed the Commission's decision, finding Eatherly in violation and liable. This appellate court upheld the Chancery Court's decision, determining that the foreman qualified as an 'employee' under both statutory and regulatory definitions and that Eatherly failed to prove its affirmative defense of employee misconduct. The court also addressed the burden of proof for employee misconduct, holding it to be an affirmative defense resting on the employer.

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)Trenching and ExcavationEmployee Safety RegulationsForeman ResponsibilityEmployer LiabilityWorkplace Safety ViolationsAdministrative AppealsJudicial Review of Agency DecisionsAffirmative DefenseEmployee Misconduct Defense
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 2,343 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