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. 2019 NY Slip Op 07263
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2019

Matter of Suarez v. Suarez

This case concerns an appeal by the mother, Paula Suarez, from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, which granted the father's petition to modify their divorce judgment, awarding him temporary legal and physical custody and mandating the children's participation in a therapy program with a social worker, Linda J. Gottlieb, while prohibiting the mother's contact. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Family Court's order, finding it lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record. The Appellate Court determined that the Family Court improperly relied on a psychologist's testimony and a social worker's report without due process, and unlawfully delegated its decision-making authority. Consequently, the branches of the father's petition related to custody modification and program participation were denied.

Custody DisputeParental AlienationChild Custody ModificationFamily Court Act Article 6Appellate ReviewBest Interests of the ChildrenSeparation AgreementDivorce Judgment ModificationTherapy ProgramSocial Worker Report
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suarez v. Sherman Gin Co.

Lucio Suarez sued Sherman Gin Co. and others for personal injuries sustained in a cotton ginning machine accident that occurred after Sherman Gin Co. was dissolved. Suarez sought to recover damages under the trust fund theory from former directors, officers, and shareholders, and through the de facto merger doctrine against Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trust fund theory does not apply to post-dissolution claims, and no de facto merger occurred. Texas Employers' Insurance Association's claim for workers' compensation and medical benefits paid to Suarez was also denied.

Corporate DissolutionSuccessor LiabilityTrust Fund TheoryDe Facto MergerPost-Dissolution ClaimsProduct LiabilitySummary JudgmentTexas Business Corporation ActAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2013

Suarez v. Williams

Petitioners Ricardo and Laura Suarez (grandparents) sought custody of their grandchild, alleging the child had resided with them since birth despite a 2006 order granting primary physical custody to the mother. The court found extraordinary circumstances, citing the mother's voluntary relinquishment of care and control through written agreements and behavior, and the child's extended disruption of custody. After considering the child's best interests, which included the stable and nurturing home provided by the grandparents, the court awarded joint legal custody to the grandparents and the father. Primary physical custody was granted to the grandparents, with structured parenting time for both the mother and the father. The decision highlighted the mother's lack of truthfulness and actions prioritizing her own agenda over the child's stability.

Child CustodyGrandparent CustodyBest Interests of the ChildExtraordinary CircumstancesVoluntary Relinquishment of CustodyJoint Legal CustodyPrimary Physical CustodyParenting TimeFamily LawParental Rights
References
24
Case No. 04-14-00622-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2014

Marisela G. Salas, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Martin Suarez and as Next Friend of Keyla Marizel Salas Suares, Minor v. Allen Keller Co. I, L.L.C. D/B/A Allen Keller Co.

This case concerns an appeal of a summary judgment granted in favor of Allen Keller Co., a general contractor, in a negligence lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by the estate of Martin Suarez, an employee of subcontractor C&B White Services, Inc., who died after falling from a truck while moving traffic control signs on a TxDOT roadway project. The appellant argued that Allen Keller Co. retained sufficient control over the work to be held liable. The trial court determined that Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code did not apply and granted summary judgment based on common law, finding that Allen Keller Co. did not exercise sufficient control over the specific activity causing the injury and had no actual knowledge of the danger. The appellee's brief asks the appellate court to affirm the trial court's judgment.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentIndependent ContractorPremises LiabilityDuty of CareTraffic ControlConstruction AccidentWrongful DeathAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
15
Case No. 3-15-00262-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2015

Texas Association of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine v. Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners And Patricia Gilbert, Executive Director in Her Official Capacity

This is an Administrative Procedures Act challenge to the validity of Chiropractic Board rules that authorize chiropractors to engage in the unlicensed practice of acupuncture. The Association sought to invalidate these rules and alternatively sought a declaration that the statutory scheme allowing chiropractors to practice acupuncture is unconstitutional. The trial court granted the Chiropractic Board’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Association’s competing motion. The Association argues that the Chiropractic Board exceeded its statutory authority, and its interpretation of the Acupuncture Chapter is unreasonable and creates public health risks due to inadequate training. Alternatively, the statutory scheme violates the Texas Constitution by favoring one school of medicine and containing more than one subject. The Association also argues that the statute of limitations defense fails.

Administrative LawScope of PracticeChiropractic RegulationAcupuncture RegulationStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersDelegation of AuthorityPublic Health and SafetyProfessional Licensing
References
97
Case No. 03-00-00513-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2001

Continental Casualty Company v. the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners

Continental Casualty Company (insurer) sued the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the validity of the Board's opinion that manipulation under anesthesia and needle electromyography are within the scope of chiropractic practice. Continental, a workers' compensation insurer, argued it would be forced to pay chiropractors for services they cannot legally perform. The Board filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted, dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that assuming jurisdiction would result in an impermissible advisory opinion as there was no justiciable controversy between Continental and the Board, and Continental's complaint was arguably against the Workers' Compensation Commission.

Declaratory JudgmentWorkers' CompensationChiropractic PracticeScope of PracticeAdvisory OpinionJurisdictionSovereign ImmunityAdministrative Procedure ActJusticiable ControversyTexas Law
References
16
Case No. 03-03-00270-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2004

Robert O'Neal, D.C. v. Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners

Robert O’Neal, a licensed chiropractor, appealed the district court's dismissal of his declaratory judgment action against the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners. O'Neal sought a declaration that needle electromyography (needle EMG) is within the scope of chiropractic practice, a stance the Board already maintained. The Attorney General, however, had issued an opinion stating needle EMG was outside this scope. The district court granted the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, concluding no justiciable controversy existed between O'Neal and the Board. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no real dispute as O'Neal and the Board agree on the interpretation, thus lacking subject matter jurisdiction.

Chiropractic PracticeNeedle ElectromyographyScope of PracticeDeclaratory JudgmentJusticiable ControversyPlea to the JurisdictionAdministrative LawAttorney General OpinionTexas Court of AppealsMedical Diagnostic Techniques
References
17
Case No. M2010-01473-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2011

Roger William Byrd, D.C. v. Tennessee Board of Chiropractic Examiners

This case involves disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Roger William Byrd, a chiropractor, by the Tennessee Board of Chiropractic Examiners. The allegations stemmed from a 2000 incident of telephonic solicitation of a car accident victim within two days of her accident, violating the Board's rules. Later, additional allegations were added concerning Dr. Byrd's use of a Florida office to telemarket Tennessee accident victims. Dr. Byrd admitted telemarketing was conducted but argued a corporation, Memphis Accident and Injury Center (MAIC), was responsible, not himself. The Board found Dr. Byrd guilty of multiple violations and revoked his chiropractic license. The chancery court affirmed this decision, and the Court of Appeals of Tennessee also affirmed, concluding that substantial and material evidence supported the Board's findings that Dr. Byrd operated and controlled MAIC's telemarketing activities.

Chiropractic DisciplineTelemarketing ViolationsProfessional EthicsLicense RevocationAdministrative Law JudgeChancery Court ReviewCorporate Veil PiercingAgency InterpretationSubstantial EvidenceDue Process
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 205 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