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. 03-08-00288-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. 03-15-00007-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2015

John Doe v. Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline And Linda Acevedo, in Her Official Capacity as the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas

John Doe, the Appellant, filed a grievance against a Texas-licensed attorney. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel (CDC) dismissed the grievance. Doe then filed a declaratory judgment action against the State Bar Defendants (Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas, Commission for Lawyer Discipline, and Linda Acevedo in her official capacity as Chief Disciplinary Counsel) after the CDC denied his request for its recommendation to the Summary Disposition Panel (SDP), citing confidentiality rules. The trial court dismissed Doe's claims for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity, lack of standing or mootness, and lack of jurisdiction over his request related to the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Doe appeals this dismissal, arguing that the State Bar Defendants are not immune from suit under Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure 15.09 or Sefzik, and that his claims are justiciable and do not seek to enjoin a grievance proceeding. He asserts he has standing due to an injury-in-fact and that the case is not moot under the 'public interest' exception.

Attorney DisciplineGrievance ProcessSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment ActionLegal EthicsJudicial ReviewTexas LawConfidentiality of GrievancesDue ProcessAdministrative Law
References
190
Case No. 15-25-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2024

City of Coppell, Texas; City of Humble, Texas; City of DeSoto, Texas; City of Carrollton, Texas; And City of Farmer's Branch, Texas // Kelly Hancock, in His Official Capacity as Acting Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas v. Kelly Hancock, in His Official Capacity as Acting Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas // City of Coppell, Texas; City of Humble, Texas; City of DeSoto, Texas; City of Carrollton, Texas; City of Farmer's Branch, Texas; And City of Round Rock, Texas

The case involves a legal dispute over the State of Texas Comptroller's amendments to Rule 3.334, which governs local sales and use tax sourcing, especially for e-commerce and fulfillment centers. The applicant cities challenge several subsections of the rule, arguing they contravene existing statutes, prior interpretations, and the Administrative Procedure Act due to inadequate notice and reasoned justification. The Comptroller asserts the amendments clarify long-standing interpretations to address modern e-commerce practices, ensure uniform tax application, and prevent revenue manipulation, maintaining that the changes are within their statutory rulemaking authority. The trial court invalidated several contested subsections of Rule 3.334, permanently enjoining their enforcement and remanding them for further consideration. Both parties are appealing aspects of the trial court's decision, with the Comptroller cross-appealing the invalidity rulings. The issue is significant to Texas jurisprudence, determining where sales or use taxes are consummated for local allocation.

Sales Tax SourcingLocal Sales TaxE-commerceFulfillment CentersAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationTexas Tax CodeRule 3.334Tax Revenue AllocationJudicial Review of Agency Action
References
21
Case No. 03-05-00189-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation v. Insurance Council of Texas, Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Envoy Medical Systems, Inc.

The Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation (the "Division") promulgated a rule (28 Tex. Admin. Code § 133.309) to create a less expensive alternative review procedure for workers' compensation claims concerning the necessity of medical treatment. The Insurance Council of Texas, Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Envoy Medical Systems, L.P. (the "Joint Appellees") challenged the rule's validity in a declaratory judgment action. The district court granted the Joint Appellees' motion for summary judgment, declaring the rule invalid. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the rule was not in harmony with relevant governing statutes that allowed for judicial review of medical necessity disputes.

Workers' Compensation LawAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentMedical Necessity DisputesAlternative Dispute ResolutionAgency Rule ValidityTexas Court of Appeals
References
15
Case No. 03-05-00413-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2007

Armando Sanchez, M.D. v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners and Donald W. Patrick, M.D.

This disciplinary action was brought by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline against Raul Garcia, a Texas-licensed attorney, for violations of rules 5.04(a), 5.04(b), 5.05(b), and 7.01(a) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. The district court granted summary judgment for the Commission as to rules 5.04(a), 5.05(b), and 7.01(a), and for Garcia as to rule 5.04(b). Garcia appealed the judgment. At relevant times, Garcia was employed by Cristo Vive, a nonprofit organization that provided immigration-related legal matters. It is undisputed that Cristo Vive charged fees for these legal services and that Cristo Vive has never succeeded in obtaining the required recognition or accreditation.

Attorney DisciplineUnauthorized Practice of LawFee SplittingProfessional Conduct RulesTrade Name ViolationLawyer EmploymentNon-profit OrganizationImmigration Legal ServicesSummary JudgmentTexas Court of Appeals
References
16
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. 03-01-00215-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2002

Patient Advocates of Texas and Allen J. Meril, M.D. v. Texas Workers Compensation Commission Leonard Riley, Executive Director And State of Texas

This case concerns a challenge brought by Patient Advocates of Texas and Allen J. Meril, M.D., against the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and the State of Texas. The challenge targeted the validity and enforcement of Commission rules, specifically the Medical Fee Guideline (Rule 134.201) and the Dispute and Audit Rules (Rules 133.300-.305). Advocates contended that the Guideline was procedurally and substantively invalid, and that the Dispute and Audit Rules improperly delegated auditing powers to private insurance carriers and imposed an unlawful statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed the Guideline's fee caps and the one-year statute of limitations but reversed the trial court's judgment, declaring the delegation of auditing powers to private insurance carriers invalid.

Workers' Compensation ActMedical Fee GuidelinesAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Rule-making proceduresDelegation of authorityPrivate insurance carriersAuditing powersStatute of limitationsConstitutional challengeDue process
References
15
Case No. 03-00-00370-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2000

Texas General Indemnity Company v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Todd Brown in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission And Michael L. MacIk

Texas General Indemnity Company (TGI) filed a declaratory judgment action in Travis County challenging the validity of Rule 130.8 of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC). The district court granted TWCC's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed TGI's suit, also conditionally denying TGI's summary judgment motion and granting TWCC's. TGI appealed, arguing mandatory jurisdiction in Travis County and that Rule 130.8 conflicted with the Labor Code. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, applying res judicata due to a prior adverse ruling against TGI on the same issue in Texas Gen. Indem. Co. v. Eisler. Additionally, the court affirmed the conditional judgment, concluding Rule 130.8 is a valid exercise of the Commission's rulemaking authority and does not conflict with the Texas Labor Code.

Administrative Rule ChallengeDeclaratory JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsImpairment Income BenefitsRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelStatutory InterpretationRulemaking AuthorityTexas Administrative Procedure ActLabor Code
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
Showing 1-10 of 16,394 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