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. 03-13-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage // Cross-Appellant,Texas Medical Association v. Texas Medical Association// Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage

The amicus brief, submitted by The Association of Marital and Family Therapy Regulatory Boards (AMFTRB), urges the Third Court of Appeals to grant en banc reconsideration and reverse a panel's decision that found 22 TEX. ADMIN CODE §801.42(13) invalid. The brief argues that Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists (LMFTs) are fully qualified, trained, and tested to perform diagnostic assessments within their therapeutic role. It asserts that diagnosis alone, in the context of marriage and family therapy, does not constitute the practice of medicine under the Texas Medical Practice Act, and preventing LMFTs from performing these assessments would effectively prohibit their professional practice and create a shortage of mental health professionals in Texas. The AMFTRB also highlights that the legislature did not intend for LMFTs to be supervised by physicians and that the structure of the Occupations Code supports marriage and family therapy as a stand-alone profession. Additionally, the brief questions the qualification of the Texas Medical Association's expert witness due to prior ethical lapses.

Marriage and Family TherapyDiagnostic AssessmentMedical Practice ActOccupations CodeRegulatory BoardsLicensureScope of PracticeMental Health ServicesTexasAccreditation
References
9
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sims v. STATE DEPT. OF PUBLIC WELFARE, ETC.

This case challenges the constitutionality of several chapters (11, 14, 15, 17, 34) of Title 2, Texas Family Code, concerning child abuse reporting, emergency seizure of children, and termination of parental rights. The plaintiffs, the Sims family, sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against the actions of the Harris County Child Welfare Unit. A three-judge district court was convened and found that abstention from federal intervention was not warranted due to the nature of the state action and the plaintiffs' constitutional challenge, which involved procedural irregularities and a lack of fair opportunity for hearing in state court. The court declared multiple sections of the Texas Family Code unconstitutional, particularly those related to notice, hearings, standard of proof, and appointment of counsel, and permanently enjoined their enforcement. However, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for monetary damages.

Child AbuseFamily LawConstitutional LawDue ProcessAbstention DoctrineInjunctive ReliefDeclaratory ReliefParental RightsChild WelfareState Intervention
References
35
Case No. 03-16-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision

E. A.// Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services// Cross-Appellee, E. A.

This document is an appeal brief filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) in the Third Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas. The appeal concerns an administrative proceeding where E.A. challenged a Texas Health and Human Services Commission order. The order affirmed the Department's decision to place E.A.'s name in the Employee Misconduct Registry after an administrative law judge found E.A. neglected residents at Four J’s Community Living Center. The central argument of the brief is that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over E.A.'s suit for judicial review because E.A. failed to file a timely motion for rehearing, a jurisdictional prerequisite under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Department seeks to reverse the trial court's order denying its plea to the jurisdiction and to dismiss E.A.'s suit.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityEmployee Misconduct RegistryContested CaseMotion for RehearingJurisdictionAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationTexas Government Code
References
13
Case No. 03-22-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Stephanie Muth in Her Official Capacity of Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor John Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor And Dr. Megan Mooney

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction against the State of Texas for issuing a directive that classifies gender-affirming medical care for minors as child abuse. Appellees, including parents of a transgender adolescent and a psychologist, sued to enjoin the State from initiating child abuse investigations based on this directive. The trial court denied the State's plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of jurisdiction and the injunction against the Department of Family and Protective Services and its Commissioner, concluding that the directive constituted an invalid rule under the APA and caused irreparable harm. However, it reversed the denial of jurisdiction and dismissed claims against the Governor, stating he lacked authority to control investigatory decisions.

Gender-affirming careChild abuse policyTemporary injunctionAdministrative Procedure ActUltra viresParental rightsEqual protectionDue processState government authorityJudicial review
References
62
Case No. 17-0345
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2019

Patricia Mosley v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Patricia Mosley challenged her placement on the Employee Misconduct Registry by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. She sought judicial review without filing a motion for rehearing, relying on a misleading agency letter and regulation. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed that a motion for rehearing is a jurisdictional prerequisite for judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act. However, the court also ruled that the agency's affirmative misrepresentation regarding the appeal process violated Mosley's due process rights, preventing her from exhausting administrative remedies. The case was remanded to the Health and Human Services Commission to allow Mosley to file a motion for rehearing, thereby restoring her opportunity for judicial review.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewDue ProcessMotion for RehearingEmployee Misconduct RegistryTexas Health and Human Services CommissionTexas Department of Family and Protective ServicesJurisdictional PrerequisiteStatutory InterpretationAgency Misrepresentation
References
43
Case No. 08-10-00067-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2011

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Norma Parra

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (Department) appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a retaliatory discharge suit filed by former employee Norma Parra. Parra alleged retaliatory termination after filing for worker's compensation benefits. The Department argued that sovereign immunity for such claims had not been clearly and unambiguously waived under Section 311.034 of the Texas Government Code. Citing Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, distinguishing the case from Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman and asserting that the State Applications Act (SAA) continues to waive sovereign immunity for retaliation claims against state agencies.

Retaliatory DischargeSovereign ImmunityWorker's CompensationStatutory InterpretationGovernment LiabilityAppellate ReviewPlea to JurisdictionTexas Labor CodeTexas Government CodeWaiver of Immunity
References
4
Case No. 03-22-00420-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

Stephanie Muth, in Her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. PFLAG, Inc. and Adam Briggle and Amber Briggle, Individually and as Parents and Next Friends of M.B., a Minor

This appeal concerns temporary injunctions issued against the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) and its Commissioner. The injunctions prevent DFPS from investigating parents for child abuse solely based on providing gender-affirming medical care to minors, a policy adopted following an Attorney General opinion and Governor's directive. The Court affirmed the injunctions, finding that the appellees (families with transgender children and PFLAG, Inc.) had standing, their claims were ripe and not moot, and sovereign immunity was waived. The court concluded that DFPS's policy constituted an invalid rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, adopted without proper procedures, and interfered with fundamental parental and children's constitutional rights.

Gender-affirming careChild abuse investigationAdministrative Procedure ActParental rightsConstitutional rightsStandingRipenessMootnessSovereign immunityTexas law
References
28
Case No. 13-08-00527-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2009

Texas Youth Commission - Evins Regional Juvenile Center v. Nelina Garza

The Texas Youth Commission (TYC) appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a lawsuit filed by Nelina Garza. Garza, an employee, alleged employment retaliation after reporting child abuse at a juvenile facility, asserting claims under the Texas Whistleblower Act and the Texas Family Code. TYC contended that Garza failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that her family code claims were precluded. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Garza had created a fact issue regarding the initiation of grievance procedures and the applicability of the Texas Family Code claims.

Whistleblower ActEmployment RetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentChild Abuse ReportingGovernmental ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesTexas Family CodeAdverse Personnel ActionContinuing Violation Doctrine
References
28
Case No. 03-16-00358-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2016

Patricia Mosley// Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Texas Department of Family and Protective Services// Cross-Appellee, Patricia Mosley

Patricia Mosley is appealing a trial court's decision that affirmed the Texas Health and Human Services Commission's (HHSC) order to place her on the Employee Misconduct Registry (EMR). This placement stems from an incident where AW, a disabled individual under Mosley's one-to-one supervision, swallowed batteries. Mosley argues that her actions did not constitute neglect, asserting that maintaining constant arm's-length supervision for nearly seven hours alone was impossible, AW's secretive self-harming behavior was unforeseeable given the absence of warning signs, and she lacked adequate training for AW's specific needs. The core legal arguments revolve around the definition of 'neglect' as a negligent act requiring foreseeability and the proper application of a negligence standard versus a strict liability standard.

Employee Misconduct RegistryNegligenceForeseeabilityDirect Care ServicesDisabled IndividualsHealth and Human ServicesAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawSubstantial Evidence RuleSupervision Requirements
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 11,097 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