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. 07-05-0449-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2007

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and Robin L. Hughes v. Coolbaugh Chiropractic

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and employee Robin L. Hughes appealed a judgment rendered in favor of Coolbaugh Chiropractic for medical services provided to Hughes. Hughes sustained a workplace injury and sought chiropractic treatment. Key issues on appeal included the legal sufficiency of evidence regarding Gibson's bookkeeper's actual authority to authorize multiple medical treatments and the basis for the $3,000 damages award. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found sufficient evidence for the bookkeeper's authority and that the damages were within the range of evidence, further concluding that Coolbaugh had adequately presented its claim for attorney's fees.

Employer liabilityEmployee injuryChiropractic treatmentAgency authorityActual authorityApparent authorityDamages awardSufficiency of evidenceAttorney's feesAppellate court
References
22
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. 03-14-00726-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2014

Texas San Marcos Treatment Center, L.P. D/B/A San Marcos Treatment Center v. Veronica Payton

Texas San Marcos Treatment Center appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss Veronica Payton's health care liability claim. Payton alleged negligence after being assaulted by a patient at the treatment center. The appellant argues that the expert report provided by Dr. William H. Reid is deficient, lacking factual support and specificity concerning the standard of care, its breach, and causation, as required by Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. The appellant asserts the trial court abused its discretion by finding the report adequate and requests dismissal of the claims.

Medical MalpracticeExpert ReportMotion to DismissAbuse of DiscretionStandard of CareBreach of DutyCausationHealth Care Liability ClaimPsychiatric FacilityEmployee Assault
References
25
Case No. 08-11-00264-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2014

Maria G. Thompson/Luis Marioni, D.C. v. Jaime Stolar, M.D., Alivio Medical Center, Alivio Treatment Centers, P.A. and Luis Marioni, D.C./Maria G. Thompson

This multi-party appeal originated from a medical and chiropractic malpractice lawsuit filed by Maria G. Thompson against Dr. Jaime Stolar, Dr. Luis Marioni, and Alivio Medical Center and Alivio Treatment Centers, P.A. Thompson alleged negligence resulting in severe knee injuries, including infection and fusions, following injections and treatment. A jury found Dr. Stolar and Dr. Marioni negligent, awarding damages. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment against Dr. Marioni due to insufficient evidence of causation but affirmed the judgment against Dr. Stolar. The court also upheld the denial of Thompson's claims regarding damages and apparent agency against Alivio.

Medical MalpracticeChiropractic MalpracticeKnee InjuryKnee InfectionSpontaneous FusionSurgical FusionNegligenceCausationDamages AssessmentApparent Agency
References
48
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1992

Carter v. Shoney's, Inc.

This workers' compensation appeal concerns an employer's challenge to a trial court's order for a plaintiff to receive continuous chiropractic treatment after a work-related injury. The plaintiff, Mrs. Carter, a waitress, sustained an injury in 1990 and received authorized chiropractic care from Dr. Ellis, despite a neurosurgeon, Dr. Allen, determining she had reached maximum medical improvement. The employer argued that the plaintiff abandoned medical care and questioned the necessity of continuous chiropractic treatment as well as their right to select healthcare providers. The Court affirmed the necessity of continuing chiropractic treatment but modified the judgment, requiring the employer to provide reasonably necessary future medical care while clarifying the notice requirements for changing healthcare providers. The decision highlighted the importance of employer authorization and notice in ongoing treatment scenarios.

Workers' CompensationChiropractic TreatmentMedical AuthorizationEmployer LiabilityFuture Medical CarePermanent Partial DisabilityMedical NecessityStatutory InterpretationPhysician SelectionNotice Requirement
References
4
Case No. ADJ1524412 (RDG 0043469)
Regular
Oct 18, 2011

STEPHEN FLESHMAN vs. MANDINA'S CUSTOM CABINETS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a dispute over ongoing chiropractic treatment for a back injury sustained in 1989. The defendant sought reconsideration of a prior award granting weekly chiropractic visits, arguing the treatment wasn't providing functional restoration after 21 years. The Appeals Board affirmed the award of 90 days of weekly chiropractic treatment, finding it supported by the treating chiropractor's reports and testimony. However, the Board amended the order to require further medical evaluation after the 90 days to determine future treatment needs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryBack and SpineStipulated AwardPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentChiropractic TreatmentChronic Pain Medical Treatment GuidelinesFunctional RestorationProgress Report
References
1
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
Showing 1-10 of 3,324 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