Case Results

With years of combined experience and knowledge, our attorneys thoroughly understand Texas state laws and how they apply to each case. We use the facts of each case and the law to custom design the best possible defense for each client. Our tailor-made approach means we will not treat you like a number. Your case really matters to us.

But don’t take our word for it. Read on to see some of our most notable case results…

September 2022

Texas Medical Board v. J.B.

Facts: JB received a notice of complaint from the Texas Medical Board. The complaint came from his former hospital employer. The hospital filed the complaint against him because he allegedly quit his position as a treating physician without notice to the hospital or his patients, including patient RK. JB engaged Bertolino LLP to defend his license. JB was responsible for clinical treatment, in-patient, nursing home patients and was attending physician at the hospital ER. JB left employment at the hospital because of an acute crisis he was enduring regarding his workload of treating too many COVID patients and because hospital staff was not taking COVID seriously by not wearing masks or protective equipment. JB requested help from the CEO of the hospital because he was burned-out and afraid of contracting COVID. Afterwards, JB told the CEO of the hospital that he was not renewing his expiring contract with the hospital. JB first treated the patient RK and had to admit him to the hospital because he had heart and acute kidney failure. JB saw RK 2 or 3 times afterwards. RK had an appointment with JB, but never saw him because JB had already resigned from the hospital.

Outcome: Bertolino LLP served a robust response with exhibits to the Texas Medical Board showing that other medical providers, including the ER, had been treating RK. RK was later discharged with no lasting harm. After an investigation, the Texas Medical Board sent a notice saying that the investigation had been dismissed because there was insufficient evidence that a violation of the Medical Practice Act had occurred. Texas Medical Board found that JB had resigned from the hospital in November 2021 and the network providers were available to care and treat RK afterwards. There was no evidence JB had a medical or psychiatric condition which could impair his medical judgement, or his ability to practice medicine, or that he had any disciplinary actions against him by peers.

Texas Health & Human Services Commission v. P.W.

Facts: PW’s Childcare Facility self-reported to the Texas Health & Human Services Commission (HHSC) that a child’s mother had complained that her child was injured with a broken arm after being pushed off of the playground slide. HHSC’s Investigator came out and issued two citations to the Childcare Facility for failure to oversee and care for the child or attend her injuries. An Administrative Review was scheduled by Bertolino LLP to overturn the citations

Outcome: A video was available from the Childcare Facility. Bertolino LLP worked with PW and Staff to review the video and elicit testimony on what happened. During the Administrative Review, the video was shown to the HHSC Supervisor with PW and Staff to narrate the events being shown. The child was shown in the video being picked up by the parent at the Childcare Facility with no injuries – she was pointing and moving the purported broken arm and clearly not upset or crying. The HHSC Supervisor overturned both citations based on the video evidence and testimony.

Texas Board of Nursing v. SHR

Facts: SHR is a Registered Nurse who has been licensed since 2019 with no complaints or disciplinary history. She received a notice from Texas Board of Nursing that a complaint had been filed against her and an investigation had been opened. She engaged Bertolino LLP to defend her license. The allegations were that, while working as an RN at a home health care service, SRH had failed to properly maintain records, monitor or administer care to a patient, who subsequently expired.

Outcome: Bertolino LLP served a response and 5 exhibits to the Texas Board of Nursing Complaint Investigator which showed that: SRH was neither employed with the home health care service during the initial dates of allegations and then she was a new employee on orientation during the later period of time at issue; SRH was not assigned to care for the patient – other nurses and staff were; SRH did not have a nurse-patient relationship and did not have a duty to care for the patient because she was not identified in the medical records as a primary caregiver. Medical records, organizational structure and policy records were requested from the home health care service by the Texas Board of Nursing Complaint Investigator but were never supplied. After effective advocacy by Bertolino LLP, the Texas Board of Nursing sent notice to SRH that “[t]he investigation conducted by this office has been closed” and there was no sanction on SRH’s license.

August 2022

Texas Education Agency v. M.T.

Facts: Our client, MT, hired us to defend against allegations of unprofessional conduct towards other employees. The claims had been filed by staff members who were retaliating against our client for doing his job and meeting his obligations. The complaint was negatively impacting our client’s ability to continue in his chosen profession.

Outcome: The firm submitted a written response addressing the claims, demonstrating how the accusations lacked merit and how they were levied against our client simply for doing his job properly. We then represented the client at an informal settlement conference with agency staff to address any questions. At the conference we stressed the agency needed to close the case because the complaint lacked any merit. We demonstrated that the retaliatory complaint was filed by disgruntled staff members with ulterior motives and no evidence. As a result, the investigation was closed, and the case dismissed without any action against our client’s license.

Texas Department of Insurance v. E.B.

Facts: Independent Insurance Agent EB hired the Bertolino LLP to respond to a complaint filed by Allstate Insurance with Texas Department of Insurance. This complaint was that Client answered “No” to a question about whether the policy-holder was a previous Allstate customer. Client responded that it was because her initial Allstate trainer trained her to do that.

Outcome: After the firm responded with an answer showing that Client had never written an improper policy, Texas Department of Insurance closed EB’s matter without any sanction on her license and kept confidential the details of the investigation from the public. She was issued a confidential written warning regarding her insurance activities and was advised to comply with all Insurance regulations in the future.

Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. B.P.

Facts: Our client BP, rehired our firm to represent her on a secondary matter stemming from her original matter she hired us for back in June of 2021. In the summer of 2021, BP’s daycare was shut down by HHSC for a variety of deficiencies. Due to the shutdown, BP was not allowed to operate the daycare in any capacity. In the winter of 2022, HHSC accused BP of operating her daycare in direct violation of her prior adverse action. An HHSC investigator reported that she saw BP and several children exit BP’s daycare one morning and enter BP’s van. When the investigator approached, BP allegedly became hostile. Moments later, several more children were dropped off at the daycare and entered BP’s van. Over the course of HHSC’s investigation, the investigator reported that several parents and one child reported that the daycare was still operational. BP received a second notice of adverse action. The firm requested an administrative review of HHSC’s finding.

Outcome: Prior to the administrative review, Bertolino LLP, submitted several parent statements contradicting and more specifically, correcting the parents’ prior statements to HHSC investigators. Further, the firm provided additional statements from BP’s neighbors around the daycare stating that they had not seen any children inside the daycare and that they believed the daycare to be closed. Lastly, the firm provided evidence that the daycare had not even had any electricity since January of 2021. Statements from BP’s electrician noted that he did not fix the issue until April of 2022 and when he entered the daycare to remedy the issue, the daycare was uninhabitable due to the absence of power for so many months. In addition to the evidence presented and argued during the review, the firm also noted that a majority of the witnesses that HHSC spoke to during their investigation spoke primarily Spanish. Further, one of the children that HHSC noted in their report as stating that the daycare was operational was five years old, nonverbal and who primarily understood Spanish not English. Therefore, the firm argued that their statements were not only misinterpreted but were not provided with full context in that children were allowed to be around the daycare, just not inside the daycare. This very specific detail was lost in translation by many witnesses and used to HHSC’s advantage. In closing the firm argued that the one incident where HHSC saw children coming out of the daycare was isolated in nature and that BP was merely transporting children to and from school. After the review, HHSC overruled their original finding and the matter was dismissed.

Texas Behavioral Health Executive Council v. B.B.

Facts: Our client BB, hired firm to represent her legal interests during a scheduled informal conference. An informal conference was scheduled after a complaint was received and BB submitted her own response. The complaint alleged a variety of allegations relating to BB’s employment at a county jail. The complaint alleged through hearsay that BB was bringing drugs into the jail, having inappropriate relationships with inmates, failing to document case notes, concealing case notes and that she was essentially under investigation with the jail for these actions.

Outcome: During the informal conference Bertolino LLP showed through several witness statements that all of the allegations were unfounded and consisted of confused, third party statements. The firm argued that if any of the allegations within the complaint were true, the jail would have actual physical evidence of the allegations and BB would have been criminally charged for her conduct. However, no physical evidence was provided. After the conference, Behavioral Health Executive Council spoke to several witnesses regarding the complaint. After such action Behavioral Health Executive Council found that they could not sustain the allegations and dismissed the matter.

July 2022

Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation v. P.K.

Facts: Our client PK, hired our firm to assist her in responding to a complaint filed with TDLR. The complaint stemmed from a work-related incident where PK was working as a speech pathologist with an infant- client. At the end of her session, the infant began to slide out of their highchair and PK grabbed the infant. When doing so, she made the infant’s feeding tube pop out. The parent of the infant witnessed the incident. Later, the parent reported the incident to PK’s employer. The employer was not made aware of the incident prior to the call, as PK never documented the incident in her case file. She was terminated and her employer filed a complaint with TDLR.

Outcome: After review of the complaint, we submitted a response packet to the TDLR investigator. Within the response we argued that the incident that occurred was purely accidental. PK’s actions were not intentional and were only done in order to prevent the infant from further injury. Further legal argument was provided showing that since the incident occurred after the session had technically ended, PK was not required to notify her employer or to document the incident in her case file. After the response and additional character evidence was reviewed by TDLR staff counsel, the matter was dismissed by TDLR for lack of evidence.

Texas Medical Board v. M.G.

Facts: Our client MG, hired firm to represent her for a second time, against allegations brought by TMB. MG had two separate cases with TMB both set for an informal settlement conference. The first case was related to allegations stemming from her first matter. That prior case resulted in a non-disciplinary sanction. However, TMB brought the case back up for a second time and argued that the first time around TMB was not specifically making allegations regarding this specific matter. The allegations were that MG resigned her privileges from a hospital while under investigation. The first case regarded her resignation from another hospital and that she did not tell this hospital about the resignation. This case was used as “background” information for the original matter. However, several hundreds of pages of documentation for this case were provided for the original case. No substantially new documentation was provided for this matter.

The second case regarded MG’s termination from an out of state hospital. Originally the hospital terminated MG for cause. However, after further review and consultation with her out of state attorney, the hospital modified the termination to be without cause.

Outcome: During the informal conference, we argued that TMB should not have brought back the first case because it was essentially the exact same case as her prior matter. The firm argued that although this matter was not the main allegation in the prior case, it was substantially argued, and evidence was provided in order to further TMB’s assertions. TMB staff argued that since this matter was not cited in MG’s non-disciplinary sanction and was not officially sited in the summary of the allegations, it was not a repeat matter. Firm countered these arguments by providing evidence that even though TMB did not follow up on this matter, it was closed by the time MG had her first informal conference. Therefore, no new information or issues were raised and all the questions TMB staff asked of MG during the informal conference were already asked during the first informal conference. Thereby showing that the matters were the same and that it would be unjust to recommend disciplinary action for conduct MG already received action for. This panel agreed and specifically pointed out to TMB staff that this current matter was resolved back in 2020 and that TMB had ample opportunity to specify this case in MG’s original matter. It was not MG’s fault that TMB did not take such action. The panel dismissed this matter. Regarding the second case, the firm argued that since MG’s termination was not for cause, there was no reason to discipline her. There was no evidence provided by TMB that MG committed any type of misconduct that caused her termination. Essentially the hospital agreed that they terminated her for no reason at all. TMB staff tried to use MG’s own admission that she was late on the day that she was terminated, as a rational for disciplinary action. However, the firm countered that argument by stating that even if she was late, that did not rise to the level of misconduct. Further, without any documentation from the hospital, TMB cannot say that was even considered in the hospital’s original rational for termination. The panel agreed and again dismissed this matter.

June 2022

S.W. v. G.D. et al

Facts: Our client, GD, hired Bertolino Law Firm to defend him in an appeal concerning a patient’s civil malpractice claim in connection with dental work our client performed. The firm represented GD in the trial court, and we won the case at the summary judgment stage based on several arguments, but the patient appealed.

Outcome: The firm submitted a brief to the court of appeals explaining why the trial court judgment was correct. While preparing the brief, we recognized a misstep the other side made by failing to address a key aspect of the trial court’s judgment. We successfully argued that because this issue was not addressed, the court of appeals should decide the case in our client’s favor without considering the other side’s legal arguments. As a result of this waiver argument, the court of appeals immediately ruled in our client’s favor, and our client did not have to continue with a lengthy legal proceeding that could have gone on for another year.

Texas State Board of Dental Examiners v. K.H.

Facts: Dentist KH hired the firm to respond to a complaint filed with Texas State Board of Dental Examiners regarding an alleged Minimum Standard of Care violation of not maintaining a written informed consent signed by the patient. The firm researched the facts of the case and found out that the Complainant was not the patient, but an ex-fiancée who did not want to pay for the dental procedure after they broke up. The firm sent a Response to the TSBDE Preliminary Investigation of Client with attached exhibits containing complete patient records that showed successful dental treatment and pointed out that the Board had no jurisdiction over a third-party complaint regarding a fee dispute.

Outcome: After the Response and Exhibits were received by the TSBDE, HK’s matter went through the standard process. Based on the Response and Exhibits, the TSBDE voted to close HK’s matter without any sanction on his license and kept confidential the details of the investigation from the public.

Texas Education Agency v. F.FA

Facts: Our client FFA, hired firm to assist her in responding to a notice of investigation filed by TEA alleging that FFA abandoned her teaching contract. The investigation stemmed from FFA’s resignation in February of 2022. She resigned in the middle of her contract due to a change in circumstance. Her mother, who took care of her children while she was at school, contracted COVID in January of 2022 and after contracting the virus was unable to fully recover. She therefore advised FFA that she could no longer watch her children. Due to this abrupt change in circumstance, FFA resigned without notice.

Outcome: After consultation with FFA, Bertolino LLP, submitted a response to the allegations. Within the response we argued that FFA did not violate any code section related to contract abandonment because she had cause to resign. We argued that her lack of childcare was an immediate need that arose after the time that she signed her contract. We provided witness statements from her mother and her mother’s physician as well as documentation of her positive COVID results and her urgent care records. After analysis of the response and consultation with TEA staff, TEA dismissed the complaint and closed the investigation.

Texas Medical Board v. I.M.

Facts: Our client IM, hired firm to assist him in responding to a complaint filed against him by TMB. The complaint alleged that he was aiding and abetting nonmedical staff in the practice of medicine at the medical spa where he worked as medical director. There was video evidence of a nonmedical employee injecting a substance into a patient’s face and lips. There were further allegations that he was not conducting appropriate physician- patient visits and that he was not qualified to perform certain procedures.

Outcome: During an informal conference in front of a board panel, Bertolino LLP, argued that IM did not aid or abet anyone in the practice of medicine. We explained that the video was created without IM’s consent or knowledge. That the injector in the video was the CEO of the medical spa and the patient was the spa’s marketing director. We provided a statement from them that the video was meant for marketing and advertising purposes, and nothing was actually injected into the patient. Further, we provided a witness statement that corroborated IM’s statements regarding what he allowed nursing staff to do during patient visits and records of his past training in certain procedures. After the conference, the board dismissed the complaint and closed the matter.

May 2022

Texas State Board of Public Accountancy v. C.W.

Facts: Our client CW, hired firm to assist him in disclosing one recent and one prior criminal conviction to the Board. The firm drafted and submitted a disclosure of the convictions along with several character statements, employment evaluations, probation documentation and other character evidence that showed that CW was apologetic for his failure to disclosure sooner. The firm argued that although CW had made several mistakes in the past, he was still fit to practice.

Outcome: After the self-disclosure was received by the Board, CW’s matter went through the standard process. Based on the self-disclosure and the other character evidence, the Board offered CW a confidential program. This program required CW to sign a Board order. However, the Board order was not public record and was not subject to an open records request. Further, the order was not considered a disciplinary action and therefore CW’s license remained unencumbered. Essentially, after completion of the program, CW’s matter will be dismissed.

Texas State Board of Public Accountancy v. F.J.

Facts: Our client FJ, hired firm to assist him in disclosing a recent criminal conviction to the Board. The firm drafted and submitted a disclosure of the conviction along with several witness statements and other character evidence that showed that FJ was still fit to practice in Texas. The firm further argued that this conviction was an isolated incident and not indicative of future conduct.

Outcome: After the self-disclosure was received by the Board, FJ’s matter went through the standard process. Based on the self-disclosure and the other character evidence, the Board determined that FJ’s matter did not warrant disciplinary action. An investigation was never initiated, and FJ’s license was never sanctioned.

April 2022

Texas State Board of Professional Engineers v. G.S.

Facts: Our client GS, hired our law firm to assist her in disclosing a recent criminal conviction to the Board. Our firm drafted and submitted a disclosure of the conviction along with witness statements and other character evidence that showed that GS was still fit to practice in Texas. Our firm further argued that this conviction was an isolated incident and not indicative of future conduct.

Outcome: After the self-disclosure was received by the Board, GS’s matter went through the standard process. Based on the self-disclosure and the other character evidence, the Board determined that GS’s matter did not warrant disciplinary action. An investigation was never initiated, and GS’s license was never sanctioned.

Texas Board of Nursing v. U.L.

Facts: Our client UL, hired us to represent her against a complaint filed against her license by the Board of Nursing (BON). The complaint was initiated by her former employer. The BON’s complaint alleged that she misappropriated morphine. After an investigation was completed by her employer she resigned. Her resignation was not accepted, and she was terminated.

Outcome: We submitted a response packet to the allegations which detailed how UL did not misappropriate morphine. We argued that the evidence was not sufficient to prove that she took the morphine for self-use or that she failed to administrator the morphine. We provided evidence that UL simply failed to timely document this single administration. Based on the arguments, the BON issued UL a corrective action. This action is not public and is not subject to an open records request. The action is also nondisciplinary. After UL completes her action, the matter will be dismissed.

Texas Medical Board v. M.G.

Facts: Our client M.G., faced a complaint by the Texas Medical Board (TMB) regarding adverse peer review, failure to meet the standard of care and problematic practices regarding professionalism and behavior towards hospital staff. M.G. had 14 patient cases where TMB felt she had violated the code. TMB alleged that she was a danger to her patients and the public and recommended sanctions and an evaluation.

Outcome: After TMB’s investigation, an informal settlement conference was held. Bertolino LLP presented evidence in the form of an expert report, by a 3rd party expert, who disagreed with TMB’s initial findings that M.G. fell below the standard of care. They further argued that her behavioral violations were insignificant based on her 20-year career as a physician. Based on their arguments, TMB offered M.G. a non-disciplinary plan. This meant that her matter was essentially dismissed and would not result in disciplinary action by TMB so long as she completed the plan.

March 2022

Texas Board of Nursing v. U.L.

Facts: UL hired our law firm to defend her against the Texas Board of Nursing’s (“BON”) allegations of misappropriation of morphine. UL’s employer terminated her after they investigated her conduct regarding the administration of morphine to a patient. The allegation was that she did not properly administer the morphine and that she then documented the administration the following day in an attempt to hide the theft.

Outcome: After receiving all the evidence from the BON, Bertolino LLP submitted a written response and argued that UL did properly administer the morphine, she did not misappropriate any morphine for her own use. Bertolino LLP further argued that the hospital’s computer system was defective when recording administrations. After the BON reviewed the response, they offered UL a private reprimand. After the completion of the private reprimand, the matter was dismissed.

Texas Medical Board v. R.V.

Facts:  RV hired our law firm to submit her application for licensure with the Texas Medical Board (“TMB”). RV had prior disciplinary history during her residency education, which she was required to disclose on her application. Our team submitted RV’s application and completed the proper forms that were required based on her educational history. Our team also submitted supplemental forms that explained in detail the incidents which occurred during her residency. Providing these responses ahead of time helped to facilitate the licensure process.

Outcome:  After the TMB received the application and forms, RV’s matter went through the standard TMB investigative process.  After a few months, RV’s application was approved for full licensure with no investigation necessary by the TMB Enforcement Department.

Texas Department of Insurance v. H.H.

Facts: The Texas Department of Insurance (“TDI”) sent HH a Notice of Complaint.  The Complainant had been a paralegal at a law office in the same building as HH’s insurance agency, and the Complainant wanted to leave the law business and pursue a career in insurance. HH encouraged Complainant to obtain a temporary license from TDI, which she did and the Client mentored her while she continued to work as a paralegal at the law office. Soon afterward, the Complainant filed a complaint with TDI, accusing HH of unethical behavior and that he was unlawfully splitting commissions with a CPA firm.

Outcome: Bertolino LLP prepared a robust, 14-page response to the TDI complaint. TDI then replied with a letter that they were closing the complaint file with no discipline on HH.

February 2022

Texas Medical Board v. A.U.

​​​Facts:  AU was a licensed physician until he signed an Agreed Board Order (“ABO”) suspending his medical license. Prior to signing the ABO, AU was investigated by the Texas Medical Board (“TMB”) for professional misconduct, two of which resulted in AU’s arrest. The order suspended AU’s license until his treating physicians could advise that he was able to safely practice medicine again. After a year of compliance with the ABO, AU requested that the suspension be terminated.

Outcome:  During an Informal Settlement Conference, Bertolino LLP submitted evidence of AU’s regained ability to safely practice. The firm submitted AU’s compliance reports, proof of employment, community service hours, and a letter from a treating physician concluding that AU was ready to reenter the field of medicine. Bertolino LLP also argues AU’s criminal matters. The Board granted AU’s request and terminated the suspension pending AU’s educational evaluation with an internal program.

Texas State Board of Occupational Therapists v. J.Y.

Facts: A former employer of JY’s filed a complaint against her for negligence and for failing to provide timely reports after treatment sessions. The Board requested a response to the complaint from JY.

Outcome: Bertolino LLP submitted a written response and provided evidence showing that JY did submit a majority of her reports prior to her resignation. Bertolino LLP successfully argued that there was no evidence of negligence and that the complaint was retaliatory in nature. The Board dismissed the complaint.

January 2022

Texas State Board of Professional Engineers v. D.H.

Facts: A former client of DH’s filed a complaint against him alleging that he lied to his client, misled his client, failed to act as a reasonable engineer would have by not requesting an extension to his site plans, and losses to his client in the approximate amount of $200,000. The complaint was investigated, and the Board found evidence amounting to a code violation. The Board set the matter for an informal settlement conference.

Outcome: During the informal conference, Bertolino LLP presented two witnesses and provided several documents proving that DH did not lie or mislead the client. The evidence also showed that DH acted as any engineer would have in the same or similar situation. Through the presented evidence Bertolino LLP argued that the complaint was missing information and context and was made to make DH look incompetent. Bertolino LLP also argued that there was no evidence showing that it was DH’s actions that led to the client’s loss of $200,000. After closing arguments, the Board voted to dismiss the matter.

August 2021

Texas Medical Board v. M.G.

​Facts: Our client M.G., faced a complaint by the Texas Medical Board (“TMB”) regarding adverse peer review, failure to meet the standard of care, and problematic practices regarding professionalism and behavior towards hospital staff.  TMB alleged that M.G. was a danger to her patients and the public and recommended sanctions and an evaluation.

Outcome: After TMB’s investigation, an informal settlement conference was held. Bertolino LLP presented evidence in the form of an expert report, by a 3^rd party expert, who disagreed with TMB’s initial findings that M.G. fell below the standard of care. They further argued that her behavioral violations were insignificant based on her 20-year career as a physician. Based on their arguments, TMB offered M.G. a non-disciplinary plan. This meant that her matter was essentially dismissed and would not result in disciplinary action by TMB so long as she completed the plan.

Texas Behavioral Health Executive Council v. K.C.

Facts: Our client K.C., faced a complaint filed by her former employer alleging that she violated the Texas Administrative Code by creating a dual relationship with a former client. The Executive Council pursued the matter through the investigative phase and argued that our client should not have entered into a business relationship with her former client.

Outcome: Through vigorous negotiations with staff counsel, Bertolino LLP was able to secure a non-disciplinary reprimand for our client. The reprimand required the completion of a few continuing education courses. The matter was closed and with no public record.

July 2021

Texas Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors v. T.M.

Facts: Client TM is a Registered Professional Engineer with 38 years of experience. TM was hired to draft a stormwater detention engineering design that was needed by a customer to obtain a building permit for a swimming pool on his property. His first draft for a building permit was rejected by the city. He advised the customer that the project would be far more expensive than originally bid. The customer agreed that TM would just refund the deposit he paid. Prior to the refund being paid, the customer filed a complaint with the Texas Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (the “Board”). After TM was notified of the complaint, he refunded the deposit and the customer rescinded the complaint. However, the Board pursued the complaint anyway saying TM had failed to practice engineering in an honest and ethical manner and failed to act as a faithful agent to his client because it took him over three months to pay the refund and did so only after the complaint was filed. The Board issued a proposed Consent Order to TM, imposing a one-year suspension of his license probated and successful completion of ten hours of continuing education in ethics.

Outcome: TM rejected the proposed Consent Order and hired Bertolino LLP to represent him in front of the Board at an informal conference. At the conference, TM was led through a question-and-answer presentation regarding going through a divorce at the time and having to sell his house in another state which caused him to neglect the refund. He met with the customer within 24 hours of learning about the complaint and paid him the refund. The customer was satisfied and told TM that he would withdraw the complaint. After deliberations, the Board modified the Consent Order to an informal reprimand, no suspension of license and successful completion of ten hours of continuing education in a second-level ethics class within eight months.

June 2021

Texas Department of Insurance v. Y.O.

Facts: Texas Department of Insurance sent our client, Y.O., a Tex. Ins. Code Sec. 38.001 request for information regarding her consulting contract with a municipality where she allegedly identified herself as a life and health counselor, but did not have a license. TDI additionally asked her about selling insurance products without a license because she had applied for her general lines insurance agency license as well as her life and health counselor license. TDI held up her license applications until the inquiries were finished.

Outcome: Bertolino LLP assisted with written responses and documents which satisfied that portion of the inquiry. TDI followed up with a second Tex. Ins. Code Sec. 38.001 inquiry about Y.O.’s contractual relationship with another entity – a school district. Bertolino LLP again assisted Y.O. with written responses and documents to TDI. TDI closed the investigation and issued a letter of warning to Y.O. regarding holding herself out as a life and health counselor without a license. TDI also issued her general lines insurance agency license.

Texas Department of State Health Services v. A.M.

Facts: Our client, A.M., faced a complaint filed by the Department alleging that our client falsified a medical report and allowed a subordinate to practice outside his scope. The Department pursued the matter through the investigative phase and argued that our client committed acts which required discipline.

Outcome: Through negotiations with staff counsel, Bertolino LLP was able to modify the language regarding the finding of facts within the proposed agreed order and afforded the client only a simple reprimand within the order. Therefore, the order issued no requirements or conditions against the client.

May 2021

Texas Physician Assistant Board v. T.C.

Facts: T.C. is a licensed Physician Assistant since 2007. He had been disciplined by the Texas Physician Assistant Board for unprofessional and dishonorable conduct and for violating Board orders. The Board entered several Modification Orders afterwards for failure to comply with earlier Orders, including requirements for continuing medical education and restrictions on his license. On December 20, 2019, the Board entered an Order of Temporary Suspension Without Notice, suspending his license as a physician assistant. T.C.’s previous attorney did not appeal his Temporary Suspension Order Without Notice of Hearing, and T.C.’s Texas Physician Assistant License was canceled.

Outcome: T.C. engaged Bertolino Law Firm afterwards and filed an Application for Temporary Suspension or Restriction of Texas Physician Assistant License With Notice of Hearing. A hearing was held in which evidence and testimony that T.C. did not violate the Board Orders was heard by the Board. After the hearing, the Board entered an Order of Temporary Restriction which lifted the temporary suspension placed on T.C.’s license.

Texas Department of Insurance v. P.E.

Facts: Our client, P.E., faced a complaint filed by third party that claimed that she fraudulently applied for life insurance policies in the complainant’s children’s names. TDI prosecuted the matter and filed a petition with the State Office of Administrative Hearing. At the hearing, TDI tried to show that our client committed fraud based on several witness statements. During the hearing, Bertolino LLP discredited the witness statements and argued that TDI could not meet their burden.

Outcome: After an all-day hearing, Bertolino LLP secured a favorable decision from the administrative law judge who denied TDI’s request that our client’s license be revoked.

February 2021

Texas Department of Insurance v. E.P.

After receiving a complaint that E.P. allegedly falsified an application for life insurance by claiming she is the guardian of the complainant’s children, Texas Department of Insurance (“TDI”), filed a Complaint at the State Office of Administrative Hearings, claiming E.P. willfully violated Texas insurance law and engaged in fraudulent acts. TDI sought revocation of E.P.’s license, assessment of an administrative penalty, and issuance of an order that E.P.’s insurance agency cease and desist from engaging in the unauthorized business of insurance. The attorneys at Bertolino, LLP successfully argued that there was no evidence to support any of TDI’s allegations. The judge issued a Proposal for Decision in E.P.’s favor, stating there should be no penalties against E.P.’s license, no administrative penalties, and no cease and desist order against her agency.

January 2021

State Board Of Dental Examiners v. N.M.

N.M. applied for a Texas Dental License in July 2020. The Texas State Board of Dental Examiners (the “Board”) denied his request based on a felony charge with no final disposition. Seven years earlier, N.M. received a deferred adjudication for a second-degree felony offense of Possession of a Controlled Substance and sentenced to 10 years probation. N.M. hired Bertolino to appeal his license denial. After hearing from the attorneys at Bertolino, the Board ruled N.M. successfully fulfilled all statutory requirements to become a licensed dentist and granted him a Texas Dental License under a five-year probated suspension, which included no period of enforced suspension. He is fully licensed to practice dentistry as long as he abides by the Dental Practice Act and the rules and regulations of the Board.

Texas Appraiser Licensing and Certification Board v. J.A.

An Appraisal Management Company filed a complaint against J.A. stating he had not appraised the subject property properly for a loan refinance. It was based on the vacant subject property’s “As Is” condition. The complainant claimed that the improvements were 85% complete, but J.A. appraised the value at no more than a vacant lot because the house was uninhabitable. The Board threatened sanctions, up to and including license revocation, unless J.A. cooperated within 20 days for requests for more information. J.A. engaged Bertolino. The attorneys provided the Board with five comparable appraisals of other properties in the area in similar uncompleted condition. There were few sales of comparable uncompleted houses, because – until the property is completed, functional and livable – it is not considered worth more than land value. Before the Board filed a Statement of Charges, the firm negotiated a settlement on behalf of J.A. Instead of an administrative fine of thousands of dollars and sanctions against J.A.’s license, he accepted 14 hours of on-line remedial education without an exam, and a stipulation that he will confirm membership on an AMC panel prior to taking any future assignments or placing bids.

December 2020

Texas Education Agency v. J.B.

TEA accused J.B. of contract abandonment and threatened to impose a one-year suspension of J.B.’s license. After a hearing at the State Office of Administrative Hearings, the Honorable Administrative Law Judge sided with J.B. and wrote a Proposal for Decision dismissing all claims.

Texas Department of Insurance v. I.F.

I.F. was accused of submitting false health insurance applications and hosting an unregistered event in violation of Medicare/Medicaid laws. I.F. hired Bertolino LLP to respond to the investigation. After we responded to the Department’s notice of investigation, TDI closed the matter and dismissed all claims against I.F.

November 2020

Texas Education Agency v. C.B.

C.B. is a licensed educator. C.B. struck one of her pre-kindergarten students on the cheek while the student was being disruptive. The parents of the child filed a complaint with the school district, local law enforcement and the Board.

After an informal conference with a Board investigator, C.B. and counsel, the Board allowed C.B. to keep her license and simply issued her a public reprimand. The reprimand required her to complete some continuing educational courses. No probationary period or fine were issued.

Texas Department of Insurance v. A.T.

A.T. was accused of unethical conduct and dishonesty. When A.T. applied to renew her license with TDI, the department denied her application and opened a formal investigation. A.T. hired Bertolino LLP to respond to the investigation and reinstate her license. After we responded to the Department’s notice of investigation, TDI closed the investigation and gave A.T. her license.

October 2020

Texas Appraiser Licensing and Certification Board v. J.A.

J.A. is a licensed appraiser who had a complaint filed against him by an Appraisal Management Company which stated he had not appraised the subject property properly for a loan refinance. It was based on the vacant subject property’s “As Is” condition. The complainant claimed that the improvements were 85% complete, but J.A. appraised the value at no more than a vacant lot because the house was uninhabitable. The Board threatened sanctions, up to and including license revocation, unless J.A. cooperated within 20 days for requests for more information.

J.A. engaged Bertolino LLP, which provided the Board with five comparable appraisals of other properties in the area in similar uncompleted condition. There were few sales of comparable uncompleted houses, because until the property is completed, functional and livable, it is not considered worth more than land value.

Before the Board filed a Statement of Charges, the firm negotiated a settlement on behalf of J.A. Instead of an administrative fine of thousands of dollars and sanctions against J.A.’s license, he accepted 14 hours of online remedial education without an exam, and a stipulation that he will confirm membership on an AMC panel prior to taking any future assignments or placing bids.

Texas Real Estate Commission v. A.C.

A.C. is licensed in Texas as a Real Estate Sales Agent. He was notified by TREC about concerns with his advertising of the name of his company – “AC Real Estate” – because this name gives the appearance that he is the one responsible for the operation of a real estate brokerage business, but he does not have a real estate broker’s license. It was also alleged that he paid a commission to a person other than a real estate license holder.

TREC’s Notice of Alleged Violations sought to impose a $66,750 Administrative Penalty against A.C., suspending A.C.’s real estate sales agent’s license for two years with 18 months of the suspension fully probated, and suspending his license until the Administrative Penalty was paid in full. We were able to negotiate an Agreed Order that A.C. would be reprimanded with no suspension, would pay an administrative penalty of $9,750 instead of $66,750 and complete a 30-hour course in marketing.

Texas Real Estate Commission v. M.P.

M.P. is a licensed real estate broker. She received Notice of Alleged Violation from the Texas Real Estate Commission regarding a complaint against her alleging conduct that was dishonest or in bad faith or that demonstrates untrustworthiness while acting as a broker or sales agent and failing to make clear to all parties to a real estate transaction the party for whom the license holder is acting.

Bertolino LLP submitted its letter of representation and rejected TREC’s offer for M.P. to accept an $8,000.00 administrative penalty and revocation of her license. We requested that the matter be set for a hearing on the merits with SOAH.

After some communications, exchange of documents and negotiations with the TREC Staff Attorney, TREC concluded its consideration of the complaint, did not find sufficient evidence of violations of the Texas Real Estate License Act in the matter and dismissed the case.

Texas State Board of Public Accountancy v. J.D.

J.D. is a licensed Certified Public Accountant and owned her own licensed CPA firm. On November 26, 2018, J.D. signed an Agreed Consent Order (“Agreed Consent Order” or “ACO”) with the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy (the “Board”) which stated in part that the “ACO may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Board Rule 519.93. The Board will disclose the terms of this ACO. Respondent’s name will be published in the Texas State Board Report, but not on the Board’s website.” J.D. engaged Bertolino LLP to represent her when the Board published her name and a summary of her Agreed Consent Order on the Board’s website, including the Texas State Board Report and License Lookup.

We sent a demand letter to the Board requesting that it remove J.D.’s name and a summary of the ACO from the Board’s website or face a presentation to the full Board that it is violating the terms and conditions of the ACO. The appearance before the Board for the purpose of making a presentation on this matter was not necessary after they complied with the demand letter, and deleted J.D.’s name and a summary of the ACO from the Board’s website.

September 2020

Texas State Board of Pharmacy v. G.T.

G.T. is a licensed pharmacist. After a physician negligently prescribed him with a controlled substance for back pain, he became addicted. When he could no longer get the prescriptions from his physician, he began stealing medications from his pharmacy while on duty. When the pharmacy discovered the theft, they reported his conduct to the DEA and the Board. G.T. was arrested by the DEA and an investigation was initiated by the Board.

After an informal conference with the Board, G.T. and counsel, the Board agreed to issue G.T. a confidential Board Order. G.T. was placed on probation and required to complete a program. The investigation and the Order will remain confidential and will not be subject to public disclosure.

Texas State Board of Pharmacy v. E.U.

E.U. is a licensed pharmacist. E.U. negligently allowed thousands of invalid prescriptions for controlled substances to be issued to clients. E.U. missed key factors and signs that she was filling invalid prescriptions over the course of two years. The Board initiated an investigation after the DEA investigated the pharmacy while E.U. was working.

After an informal conference with the Board, E.U. and counsel, the Board agreed to allow E.U. to keep her license and issued her a Board Order. The Order placed her on probation for 3 years, when the general guideline sentence is 5 years and issued her $3,000 fine, when the general guideline fine is $5,000.

Texas Board of Nursing v. P.S.

P.S. is a licensed vocational nurse. While working as a home health nurse, P.S. aggressively handled a young child who was ventilator-dependent, used lewd language directed at the child and fell asleep during her shift. The mother of the child reported the conduct, which was caught on video, to the home health agency, which later reported the conduct to the Board.

After a response to the allegations was submitted by counsel, the Board allowed P.S. to keep her license and issued her a Board Order. The Order placed her on probation and required that she complete certain continuing educational courses.

August 2020

Texas Education Agency v. J.L.

Texas Education Agency accused J.L. of contract abandonment after he resigned from a teaching position at a school near Houston, Texas to teach at another school, closer to his spouse’s employer. J.L. transferred so he could assist with caring for his two small children. J.L. vehemently denied the allegations, stating that he fulfilled all of the contractual and statutory obligations for transferring to another school. After Bertolino, LLP, provided a vigorous response to the allegations, the allegations were dismissed.

July 2020

Texas Board of Nursing v. C.L.

C.L. allegedly failed to follow the proper wasting procedures for medications at a large hospital in Houston, Texas and was accused of using the medication for herself. C.L. vehemently denied the allegations. In response to the complaint, C.L. hired our firm to compile all the required documentation and respond in writing to the Board’s investigators. After doing so, the firm convinced the Board that the allegations had absolutely no merit, and the Board dismissed the complaint.

Texas Appraiser Licensing and Certification Board v. J.A.

J.A. was accused of making material misrepresentations and omissions of fact in appraisal reports by failing to properly complete and document an appraisal of a residential home. As an appraiser with over 35 years of experience, J.A. stood by his assessments in his appraisals.

Due to their vigorous and thorough response to the complaint and negotiations with the Board, the attorneys and staff at Bertolino, LLP, were able to negotiate a contingent dismissal for J.A., avoiding disciplinary action and the imposition of formal disciplinary sanctions.

January 2019

Texas Appraiser Licensing and Certification Board v. C.S.

C.S. is a licensed residential appraiser who was alleged to have purposefully undervalued a residential home to his own benefit and to the detriment of the sellers, who were also the complainants. Specifically, the complainants alleged C.S. visited their home under false pretenses because he never intended on appraising the fair value of their home and instead wanted to “low-ball” the value to benefit his buyer-client. They further alleged that, even if C.S. was rightfully appraising their home, C.S. should not have accepted the assignment because he did not have the proper experience with their neighborhood.

Of course, C.S. denied the allegations. In response to the complaint, C.S. hired our firm to compile all the required documentation and respond in writing to the Board’s investigators. After doing so, the firm convinced the Board that the allegations had absolutely no merit, and the Board dismissed the complaint.

Texas Education Agency v. W.B.

W.B. is an educator who was accused of inappropriate conduct at school, including sending a message through a dating application. W.B. hired our firm to provide a detailed written response to the allegations and to attend an informal conference before the Texas Education Agency (“TEA”), where W.B. would have the chance to discuss their side of the story.

As it turned out, W.B. was beta-testing the application for extra income, as W.B. had done in the past. When W.B. downloaded the application and checked to see if it was running properly, the name of one of W.B.’s students appeared as a suggested “friend.” W.B. contacted the student and told them to remove themselves from the application and further informed the student that W.B. would have to inform the proper school officials because the student was a minor and the dating application was for adults only.

Upon making the report, school officials contacted the TEA, in part, because they felt it W.B. should not be contacting their students via the application. W.B. denied any wrongdoing and, after explaining the details to TEA, including providing substantive evidence in W.B.’s favor, our firm secured a dismissal of the complaint against W.B.

Texas Education Agency v. K.H.

K.H. is an educator who was accused of inappropriate conduct at school, including allegations that K.H. engaged in sexual conduct on campus. K.H. vehemently denied the accusations and hired our firm to represent them before an informal conference at the Texas Education Agency (“TEA”).

We attended the informal conference with K.H. and showed TEA that the allegations arose out of fabrications made by K.H.’s former significant other, who had engaged in a scheme to humiliate K.H. and attempted to derail K.H.’s stellar career as an educator by making false accusations and reports to school and school district administrators.

After reviewing the evidence and hearing K.H.’s side of the story, TEA dismissed the complaint and informed K.H. that their educator’s certificate would not be affected.

November 2018

Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists v. A.L.

A.L. is a licensed psychologist who was alleged to have engaged in sexual improprieties with one of their patients. The Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists (the “Board”) therefore began in investigation, requested a written response to the allegations, and set an informal settlement conference (“ISC”).

After submitting a written response to the allegations, which we found to be completely baseless, we successfully obtained a dismissal of the complaint from the Board. Our investigation of the matter revealed that the complainant was making completely false allegations and had a history of doing so, particularly with regard to making sexually-related claims against licensed psychologists.

Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, IMO L.H.

T.H. is a psychologist who applied to the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists (the “Board”) for licensure. Shortly thereafter, T.H. received notice the Board was denying T.H.’s application due to the fact that a gap of greater than two years existed between the date of completion of T.H.’s hours of supervised experience and the date of T.H.’s application for licensure. However, a Board rule allows for a waiver of this two-year gap rule upon a showing of “good cause.”

The Board invited T.H. to make a case for such “good cause,” which led T.H. to hire our firm to represent them at the Board meeting. We attended the Board meeting with T.H. and presented a case for why good cause warranted a waiver of the two-year gap rule. After successfully making the case, the Board granted the waiver and will issue a license to T.H.

October 2018

Texas Medical Board v. J.B.

Our client was alleged to have had a sexual encounter with one of their patients. The Texas Medical Board (TMB) therefore set an informal show compliance conference (ISC), which we attended with our client. At the ISC, we successfully obtained a dismissal of the complaint based on evidence that the complainant was making completely false allegations and had a history of doing so, particularly with regard to making sexually-related claims against medical caregivers.

Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners v. T.H.

T.H. is a veterinarian who was alleged to have kept inadequate records after being called out by police in the middle of the night to aid in the apprehension of two horses running loose on the side of the road. The horses were extremely malnourished and sick, so T.H. ordered they be euthanized. T.H. successfully euthanized one of the horses without incident; however, the other horse was unruly and running wild. T.H. then obtained authorization to immobilize the horse with darts containing succinylcholine, but neither worked. T.H. then determined that the second horse would also need to be euthanized, so T.H. discussed the same with the law enforcement officials on the scene. When initial efforts failed and the law enforcement officials could not procure the items needed to subdue the horse, they were forced to fire at the horse to bring it down. After an investigation by the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (TBVME), an informal conference (IC) was scheduled. We attended T.H. at the IC and presented evidence that he, at all times, was in strict compliance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations.

September 2018

Texas State Board of Pharmacy v. E.B.

Under substantial stress and pressure from work, our client, E.B., illegally issued prescriptions to themselves. E.B. responded to their conscience and self-reported to the Board. The Board notified the police, and criminal prosecution began. E.B enrolled in the Peer Recovery Network and went to drug treatment for ninety days. After completing treatment, E.B. secured a very favorable plea deal in their criminal case.

After defending E.B. at an informal conference, the Board proposed that E.B. be placed under probated suspension, to settle the matter. E.B. faced revocation at the outset of the case, so they were elated to resolve the case with a settlement that permits them to continue working.

Texas Medical Board v. F.G.

The Texas Medical Board (“TMB”) assumed jurisdiction over Medical Radiologic Technologists (“MRTs”) on September 1, 2017. Previously, MRTs were under the jurisdiction of the Texas Department of State Health Services (“DSHS”). As part of that transfer of jurisdiction, the TMB ran a dragnet background search on all licensed MRTs and set informal settlement conferences (“ISCs”) for those who had criminal history, even if the same was disclosed to DSHS.

Decades ago, F.G. entered into a plea agreement in an out-of-state criminal matter. Years later, F.G. retained an attorney to pursue expunction, but the attorney’s malpractice led to a denial of the expunction.

TMB alleged the plea agreement indicated that F.G. should not be trusted with an MRT license. We wrote to TMB on behalf of F.G. to explain the facts and circumstances underlying their case and attended the ISC with F.G. to present additional information and evidence. At the ISC, TMB dismissed the case. F.G. could not be happier.

Texas Medical Board v. P.A.

Our client, P.A., was called before the TMB for an ISC due to two misdemeanor offenses on their record, which had been properly disclosed to DSHS. P.A. endured a tough time in their marriage, which resulted in charges related to domestic disputes. TMB alleged that the criminal offenses might indicate that he should not be trusted with a license.

We submitted a written rebuttal to the allegations, explaining the story in full detail, and describing P.A.’s rehabilitation since those incidents. P.A. has ceased drinking, repaired his marriage (his spouse attended the ISC on their behalf), become intensely engaged with their local church, and done extremely valuable work as an MRT. P.A. did very well under questioning from TMB, and we conveyed to the panel members the significance of the changes P.A. has made in his life since the incidents. TMB dismissed the case.

Texas State Board of Dental Examiners v. A.G.

Our Client, A.G., was alleged to have violated their duty of fair dealing with respect to a geriatric patient with dementia (“Patient”). A.G. was sent to the nursing home where the Patient lived and conducted a full mouth assessment and x-rays, free of charge. A.G. observed severe periodontal disease, two irreparably broken teeth, and a pronounced cross bite which was causing wear on many teeth, among other issues.

A.G. developed a treatment plan and proposed procedures to resolve all the issues A.G. observed, as was their legal duty. The treatment plan was intended, per company policy, to be presented to the Patient’s responsible party, so the Patient’s responsible party could make informed decisions about which procedures to authorize and which to reject. The Patient’s responsible party did not bother to have that conversation and sought a second opinion from the Patient’s long-time family dentist. The family dentist was asked by the Board to submit a statement of his opinion of A.G.’s treatment plan.

The family dentist claimed, in a sworn statement to the Board, that none of the procedures proposed by A.G. were warranted. Although A.G. had never met the Patient’s family dentist before, A.G.’s treatment plan was essentially an indictment of the substandard care the family dentist had provided to the Patient for thirty years. The family dentist’s statement that A.G.’s treatment plan was predatory was the only argument they could make to defend against the indictment of their own work made by the treatment plan.

By written submission and zealous defense at an ISC, the firm secured a dismissal for A.G. has returned to work with the stress of this matter lifted off their shoulders, and we are very happy for them.

Texas Real Estate Commission v. M.R.

Our client, M.R., a real estate broker and corporate officer for a corporate brokerage, faced prosecution by the Texas Real Estate Commission due to their failure to secure a license for the brokerage. M.R. had conducted real estate transactions through the corporate brokerage for more than four years – a total of nearly 200 transactions. As TREC rules authorize TREC to impose a $5,000 penalty for each transaction, M.R. could have been required to pay nearly $1,000,000 in penalties. However, because they were fully cooperative with TREC, and we relayed evidence that the violation was a good faith mistake, TREC imposed only a $2,500 penalty and permitted M.R. to obtain a license for the corporate brokerage. M.R. was not even made to appear for a hearing before their matter was resolved.

IMO A.S.

Our client, A.S., M.D., was terminated from their fellowship because they left an intern to watch a patient, so A.S. could attend to a personal matter. A.S. was available by phone and responded to a question posed by the intern via text message. However, under the circumstances, A.S.’s Fellowship Director considered leaving the premises improper. Consequently, A.S. lost their VISA status because of their termination from the fellowship and thus had to move out of state. A.S’s spouse was duty bound to stay in Texas for work, so the two had to live very far from one another for more than a year.

The Fellowship Director submitted documentation to TMB, claiming that A.S. had competency and integrity issues. By providing TMB a written explanation of exactly what happened and A.S.’s rehabilitation from the incident, we convinced TMB that A.S. had the requisite character and fitness to be trusted with a license. TMB granted their application days after we submitted the written explanation. A.S. has since begun their fellowship and is well on their way to full medical licensure.

August 2018

State Bar of Texas v. C.A.

Our Client, C.A., faced a complaint filed by a former client, which alleged that they had failed to promptly respond to the client’s requests for information. C.A. faced the possibility of severe discipline, as failure to promptly respond to client requests for information is the number one basis for attorney discipline by the Texas Bar.

In June 2016, we submitted a written rebuttal, conveying to the Bar that any failure by C.A. to promptly respond to their client’s requests for information was rare and stressed that C.A. secured an exceptionally favorable settlement for their client for a very reasonable fee. In August, the Bar provided notice that no “just cause” was found to prosecute C.A.’s case further or impose discipline on C.A.’s license. The case is set to be dismissed.

Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists v. D.C.

Our client, D.C., a former psychologist licensed outside Texas, encountered a challenge in their application for a license to practice psychology in Texas. Years ago, D.C. surrendered their license based on allegations they had on an improper relationship with a former client.

After surrendering their license, D.C. had to close down their practice, settled related civil litigation, drained their retirement accounts, moved to Texas, and wound up in homeless.

The Board requested D .C. provide a written explanation and attend a meeting before all Board members to explain why D.C. should be granted a license despite the surrender of D.C.’s out-of-state license.

We provided evidence to the Board that D.C. had genuine remorse for their conduct (not just its consequences) and had rehabilitated. One of our attorneys attended the Board meeting with D.C. Shortly thereafter, the Board granted D.C. a license, contingent upon them submitting to continued psychotherapy for 2 years and other minor probationary terms .

IMO K.K.

Our Client, K.K., M.D., fell victim to bad politics while working for a hospital outside Texas. Those politics resulted in K.K.’s application for a full medical license in Texas being held up. K.K. tried, but was unable to work past those issues by himself. Through diligent and persistent efforts, we resolved these issues, and K.K. was granted a full license. They are set to begin practicing medicine in Texas very soon.

Texas Medical Board v. D.S.

Our Client, D.S., was in the midst of a contentious and toxic custody battle with their ex-spouse, who had also filed a complaint against our client with the Texas Medical Board, alleging that our client was addicted to drugs, had violated HIPAA, and improperly prescribed controlled substances and dangerous drugs to non-patients.

We submitted a written response, revealing the truth: that D.S. had committed only one minor violation, while the rest of the allegations were lies the ex-spouse concocted out of spite. We attended an ISC before a panel of the Board, where the complainant, D.S.’s ex-spouse, showed up to repeat their false claims.

Subsequently, the Board proposed a non-disciplinary remedial plan. After minor negotiations with the Board over the language in the plan, D.S. happily signed it.

Texas Medical Board v. D.T., M.D.

Our Client, D.T., M.D., faced a complaint filed by a former client which alleged that she had delayed notifying a patient that a biopsy had revealed skin cancer and delayed scheduling surgery. Another doctor had completed a biopsy, but failed to notify D.T. and never followed up to ascertain the results. D.T. found out about the biopsy when the patient called months later to inquire about results. The person responsible for scheduling surgeries made an error in the computer system and indicated that an appointment had been set when it had not.

We submitted a written rebuttal, conveying to the Board that D.T. was not even aware that a biopsy had been done on the patient, let alone that cancer had been discovered. The Board dismissed the complaint and took no disciplinary action against D.T.’s license.

Texas Board of Public Accountancy v. T.D.H.

Our Client, T.D.H., CPA, was working as an accountant for a friend’s business. That friend paid business reimbursements to TDH based on verbal agreements, but no written record was ever kept of those agreements. When a business dispute resulted in T.D.H. resigning from his friend’s business, that friend filed a complaint against T.D.H., alleging T.D.H. had been obtaining reimbursements pursuant to fraud.

We filed a written response, explaining that the complaint was false and filed for revenge based on T.D.H. resigning, and secured a dismissal.

May 2018

Texas Real Estate Commission v. H.A.,

Our Client, H.A., a real estate broker, faced four complaints (“Complaints”) filed by an aggressive attorney in H.A.’s community with political ambitions, on behalf of four sets of clients of H.A. The Complaints collectively alleged that H.A. engaged in predatory practices against these clients in his capacity as broker, by failing to disclose certain information he was purportedly required to disclose.

The Texas Real Estate Commission (“TREC”) prosecuted H.A. for each of the Complaints but dismissed all in May. Not only did we help preserve H.A.’s license; we also helped preserve his finances, by securing the dismissals through a single written submission for each of the Complaints. Despite the severity of the allegations against H.A., we alleviated the need for a hearing, and did not even need to negotiate. We provided satisfactory proof that many of the purportedly required disclosures did not apply, because of H.A.’s legal status in those transactions.

Texas State Board of Dental Examiners v. K.S., DDS

Our Client, K.S., DDS, faced a complaint (“Complaint”) filed by a client who claimed to have been harmed by bridgework which K.S. was involved in. The Texas State Board of Dental Examiners (“Board”) prosecuted the Complaint, alleging that K.S. breached the standard of care in bridgework and that she failed to maintain adequate records for the treatment provided to the complainant.

We secured a dismissal of the Complaint at an informal conference before a panel of the Board, following a single written submission, wherein we proved that K.S. indeed maintained perfectly adequate treatment records and was not at fault for the issues which transpired the bridge. In fact, the complainant’s conduct contributed heavily to the issues, and the remaining blame belonged to the laboratory responsible for producing the bridge.

Texas Medical Board v. B.H., MD

Our Client, B.H., MD, faced a complaint (“Complaint”) brought by the Texas Medical Board (“Board”), which alleged that B.H. failed to properly utilize the Texas Electronic Death Registry for a patient who passed away at the hospital where B.H. was the attending physician. B.H. did not receive notice of the death certificate from the funeral home until far later than required by law, which was the crux of our argument in his defense.

We secured a dismissal of the Complaint at an informal conference before a panel of the Board, by providing satisfactory evidence that the funeral home was at fault for the late Death Registry entry, not B.H.

April 2018

A Record Month of Dismissals

IMO Texas Medical License Application of A.C., M.D.

After more than five (5) months of zealous representation, we helped our Client, A.C., M.D., secure a full Texas Medical License. There were several snags along the way, but we were able to overcome same and help A.C. get to work. He is now happily serving Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Texas Board of Nursing v. C.O.

The Texas Board of Nursing (“Board”) prosecuted a complaint (“Complaint”) against our Client, C.O., LVN, which alleged she was responsible for a patient death which was caused by discontinued seizure medication.

While C.O. inadvertently discontinued the seizure medication, she was not responsible for the patient’s death. C.O. was a PRN nurse who only visited the pertinent facility twice a month. The facility had a number of policies and procedures in place designed to catch medication errors before they caused serious patient harm. At least ten full-time employees at the facility were charged with carrying out these policies, but all ignored same. The patient did not begin to experience seizures until thirteen days after the medication was discontinued – which means that the medication error policies were ignored for the same span. The error was not caught until sixteen days after the discontinuation – the next shift C.O. worked at the facility. By then, the patient had to be transferred to a larger facility, and soon expired.

By providing the Board with a thorough explanation of the willful violations of the facility’s medication error policies and expounding the details of C.O.’s stellar ten-year career as a nurse, we secured a remedial, non-disciplinary settlement for our Client.

Texas Medical Board v. G.V., M.D.

The Texas Medical Board (“Board”) began prosecuting our Client, G.V., M.D., after he self-reported an arrest which occurred on Christmas of 2015. The arrest was purportedly based on driving while intoxicated, but there were a number of acts committed by the charging police department, which called the integrity of their claims into question.

After receiving the self-report, the Board ran a drag-net, searching for further bases to prosecute our Client. The Board found records, suggesting that our Client had been improperly prescribing medications to his wife. While G.V.’s criminal attorney worked to secure a dismissal, based on an utter lack of evidence (chain of custody was non-existent for blood sample, which took a month to arrive at the lab, and dash video of the field sobriety test, which would have exculpated our Client, was conspicuously missing), we explained the Board that our Client was engaged in a successful regimen of collaborative medicine; he did not write the original prescriptions, but, rather, issued refills, with the full knowledge and consent of the original prescribers.

After G.V.’s attorney secured a dismissal of the criminal charges, we convinced the Board to take non-disciplinary action. Instead of the severe discipline originally proposed by the Board, G.V. need only to enroll in continuing education courses related to proper prescribing practices and pay a fine.

March 2018

Texas State Board of Pharmacy v. O.A.A.

Complaint Shut Down With Help From Handwriting Expert

Our Client, O.A.A., Pharm.D., R.Ph., faced a complaint (“Complaint”), based on a signature, purportedly authored by O.A.A., on fraudulent documents sent to the Virginia Board of Pharmacy. The Texas State Board of Pharmacy (“Board”) prosecuted our Client and set an Informal Conference to discuss same. And tremendous value hung in the balance: our Client has R.Ph. licenses in eleven other states, each and all of which would have been implicated by an adverse result for the Texas Complaint.

We retained an eminent hand-writing analyst and incorporated her expert analysis into a written rebuttal more than fifteen days before the Informal Conference. Our written rebuttal convinced the Board to dismiss the Complaint and take no disciplinary action against our Client. Afterward, we prepared administrative Complaints for our Client, who then filed same with the Virginia and Texas Boards of Pharmacy. At the earliest available opportunity, we shut down the Complaint and put our Client from the defensive onto the offensive.

Texas State Board of Occupational Therapy Examiners v. R.B.

Complaint Dismissed & Back Pay Recovered

Our Client, R.B., a COTA/L and Director of Rehabilitation, faced a complaint (“Complaint”), filed by his former employer, which alleged fraudulent billing practices.

We compelled R.B.’s former employer to enter a pre-litigation settlement to the tune of $10,000 for overtime backpay. We also ascertained that R.B. did not commit fraud at all, but rather, selected the wrong client on a fickle drop-down menu in the digital billing system used by R.B.’s employer. In February, after participating in an Informal Conference, we convinced the Texas Board of Occupational Therapy Examiners to dismiss the Complaint, and take no disciplinary action against R.B.

Texas State Board of Examiners of Professional Counselors v. D.C.

Complaints Dismissed After Written Rebuttal

Our Client, D.C., faced two Complaints (“Complaints”), alleging ethical violations. We prepared and submitted written rebuttals to both Complaints and attended a Disciplinary Committee meeting held by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Professional Counselors (“Board”). Through our written rebuttal, and the outcome of the Committee meeting, we convinced the Board to take no disciplinary action against our Client’s license.

Texas Education Agency v. L.E.

Complaint Dismissed Following Informal Hearing

Our Client, L.E., faced a Complaint (“Complaint”) filed by the School District she formerly worked for as a special educator. The Complaint alleged serious ethical violations after a third-grade student (“Student”) had a crisis, which nearly resulted in severe harm befalling several students. The School District terminated L.E. and she was left with no option other than working for a retail store to cover her bills and living expenses.

The Complaint conspicuously omitted crucial facts and circumstances, which we relayed to the Texas Education Agency (“Agency”) in a written rebuttal. Namely, L.E. had pleaded, from the end of the prior school year until the day of the crisis, with School District Leadership to develop a crisis plan for the Student; these pleadings were rejected, yet District Leadership had the audacity to play the crisis off as L.E.’s fault. We attended an informal hearing with L.E., before the Agency, and discussed the substance of the rebuttal. Days later, the Agency notified us that the Complaint had been dismissed, with no disciplinary action being taken against our Client’s educator Certificate. Our Client has been fully exonerated and is now interviewing for special educator positions.

Texas State Board of Physical Therapy Examiners v. J.R.

Complaint Dismissed With No Disciplinary Action

Our Client, J.R., faced a Complaint (“Complaint”), filed by his former employer, after a patient (“Patient”) with a history of cardiac complications expired. J.R. visited the Patient, in his home, to provide physical therapy.

Prior to visiting, J.R. thoroughly reviewed the Patient’s treatment records, prepared by other healthcare professionals. The records did not contain any indication of the Patient’s history of cardiac complications, except a low-dose, common medication which can be used to mitigate cardiac complications. Upon J.R.’s arrival, the Patient was already anxious and eager to exhibit his ability to walk. J.R. advised the Patient to slow down, as there was a serious risk of a fall. The Patient ignored J.R.’s instructions and proceeded to ambulate well beyond safe limits. To make matters worse, shortly thereafter, the Patient consumed a pill, without notifying J.R. The Patient became belligerent when J.R. attempted to slow him down, to keep him safe, causing the Patient’s heart rate and pulse to skyrocket.

J.R. notified the Patient that he intended to call EMS, based on the Patient’s cardiac condition. The Patient was recalcitrant, threatening to file a complaint against J.R. with the Board if EMS was called. In tandem with his rising anger, the Patient’s heart rate and pulse rose. J.R. called the Patient’s doctor but could not get through. Realizing that neither contacting EMS nor the Patient’s doctor were viable options, and needing to soothe the Patient, to drop his heartrate and pulse into a safe range, J.R. shifted the conversation to small talk. This strategy worked, and the Patient’s pulse dropped to a safe range.

When the Patient fully stabilized, J.R. informed the Patient of signs to watch for, which would indicate risk of a cardiac event, and provided phone numbers to call in case of same. As J.R. left the Patient’s house, the Patient thanked J.R. for the treatment, and indicated that he looked forward to the next session. Unfortunately, that session did not come to pass, as the Patient expired some time in the evening or morning after J.R.’s departure.

J.R. was terminated for the Patient’s death and his former employer filed the Complaint. J.R. was forced into bankruptcy by the controversy and had very limited defense funds. The Board alleged gross negligence and threatened severe disciplinary action. By capturing the truth of matters in a written rebuttal, and subsequent addendum to same, we convinced the Board to dismiss the Complaint, and take no disciplinary action against J.R.’s license. And we did so within a tight budget.

February 2018

Texas Board of Nursing v. W.S.

Complaint Dismissed Outright After Written Argument

Our Client, W.S., a L.V.N., faced a complaint (“Complaint”), filed by his former employer, with the Texas Board of Nursing (“Board”), which alleged W.S. (i) exceeded his scope of practice, (ii) obtained medications improperly, (iii) violated the professional boundaries of the nurse/client relationship, (iv) and inappropriately manipulated the patient schedule, delaying further appointments for imminent medical issues. By discovering the bad-blood politics beneath the surface, and preparing a robust written argument, we convinced the Board that the allegations were false, and secured an outright dismissal of the Complaint, with no disciplinary action taken against our Client’s license.

Texas Real Estate Commission v. J.R.

Board Decision Reversed on District Court Appeal

Our Client, J.R., a licensed real estate sales agent and former Federal Firearms Instructor, plead guilty to conversion of ammunition belonging to the federal government in 2014. J.R.’s conversion case contained substantial mitigation, but J.R. plead out pursuant to legal advice from his criminal attorney. The Texas Real Estate Commission (“TREC”) sought to revoke J.R.’s sales agent license. After successfully pleading J.R.’s case to an impartial Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) in the State Office of Administrative Hearings (“SOAH”), and saving J.R.’s license from revocation, TREC grossly violated the bounds of their judicial discretion and improperly manipulated the ALJ’s decision in order to revoke J.R.’s license. We appealed the case to a District Court and convinced the Judge that TREC’s abuse of discretion and unauthorized conduct was not only improper, but so improper as to pass the threshold for a reversal of TREC’s decision, pursuant to stringent standards of review.

January 2018

Texas Education Agency v. M.A.

Outright Dismissal Secured After Inappropriate Conduct Allegations

In 2014, while our Client, M.A., worked as a physics teacher at a public high school, a group of female students from the 11th grade would study in M.A.’s office during downtime. The door to M.A.’s office was always left wide upon, and the students would come and go as they pleased. M.A. had a purely platonic, professional relationship with the students, and she would often assist them with their assignments while they were in her office.

After the students graduated and reached majority age, M.A. and one of the students (“Student”) began texting one another. Eventually, the texting took on a romantic nature. After sending a flirtatious message, which she regretted, M.A. immediately deleted the Student’s contact information and did not reach out again. Shortly thereafter, M.A. received a series of calls in the dead of night – around 2:00 a.m. When she picked up the phone, M.A. was threatened by a female voice that if she did not resign due to her relationship with the Student, the caller would destroy her family and her career.

M.A. dutifully contacted leadership in her school district, described what happened and confessed her relationship with the Student. Shortly thereafter, M.A. was terminated and reported to the Texas Education Agency (“Agency”). After successful briefing and oral argument at an informal hearing, we secured an outright dismissal and cleared our Client’s name at the earliest available juncture of the case.

December 2017

Texas State Board of Dental Examiners v. T.J., D.D.S.
Suspension Lifted, Favorable Result Secured

In April of this year, our Client, a pediatric dentist, self-reported an incident which resulted in a patient seizing after being sedated; the cause of the seizure remains unknown. In June, the Board responded by suspending our Client’s Anesthesia Permits without notice and dragged him across the state to appear at a Probable Cause Hearing and answer for the incident. The suspension created tremendous havoc and stress for our Client’s office, its many employees, and their families.

After an aggressive campaign on behalf of our Client, which entailed pre- and post-hearing briefings and oral arguments before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) in the State Office of Administrative Hearings (“SOAH”), we convinced the Board to lift the suspension – before the ALJ even had an opportunity to issue a ruling. With the suspension lifted, our Client’s ability to practice and meet the needs of his patients was fully restored.

Days later, the Board dismissed the case from SOAH and began to negotiate a settlement. After extensive negotiations, we obtained a non-disciplinary remedial settlement order for our Client this month, which seemed near-impossible at the outset of the case. Our zealous advocacy of our Client’s interests brought the Board to the negotiating table and secured an excellent result.

November 2017

IMO T.J.

Real Estate Sales Agent License Secured Despite Extensive Criminal History

Our Client (“T.J.”) filed an application for a real estate sales agent license with the Texas Real Estate Commission (“TREC”) before retaining the Firm for assistance. T.J.’s criminal history started at age sixteen (16), and entails several charges which TREC alleged to cast doubt on T.J.’s moral character and fitness to serve as a fiduciary. T.J. has rehabilitated, both by personal choice and legal compulsion, and has not committed an offense in more than five (5) years. We satisfactorily convinced TREC of as much by zealously asserting that position and embarking an aggressive campaign to comply with TREC’s myriad demands for documents and explanation. We have facilitated T.J.’s rehabilitation by assisting in securing gainful employment which T.J. now intends to build a life around.

October 2017

Texas Board of Physical Therapy v. J.C.

A Dismissal Secured in the Face of Fraud Allegations

Our Client, a Physical Therapist (“J.C.”), was investigated by the Texas Board of Physical Therapy (“Board”), for allegedly committing Medicare fraud by charging for services not rendered. Through various pre-litigation maneuvers, we obtained documentation and prepared a response, which quickly stifled the complaint and secured a dismissal. At the earliest possible juncture, our tactful representation freed J.C. up to practice, without a complaint hanging overhead.

Texas Education Agency v. A.S.

A Dismissal Secured in the Face of Inappropriate Conduct Allegation

Our Client, a Teacher (“A.S.”), was investigated by the Texas Education Agency (“Agency”), after he was terminated for alleged “inappropriate conduct with students”. Through successful performance at a hearing before the Agency, we secured a dismissal.

September 2017

Texas Medical Board v. J.J.

Our Client, a Medical Radiologist (“J.J.”) was investigated by the Texas Medical Board (“Board”), for two criminal charges on his record, pursuant to the transfer of jurisdiction over Medical Radiologists from the Texas Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”). J.J. had previously disclosed both offenses to DHHS upon becoming licensed for the first time, and, yet, the Board still proposed public discipline, which may have interfered with J.J.’s employment prospects and professional reputation.

E.G., as Executor of Estate of R.G., Decedent v. R.V.

By virtue of our substantial knowledge of the legal authority governing the manifold professional licenses recognized in Texas, we successfully mediated a commercial services contract dispute. Just before mediation, we devised a legal theory, which revealed said contract to have been illegal and void, due to Defendant (“R.V.”) lacking the statutorily-required licensure to perform the commercial services contracted for. Because Decedent (“R.G.”) was not aware that Defendant was not properly licensed, E.G. reserved a viable claim to recover under the void contract.

August 2017

Texas State Board of Dental Examiners v. T.J.

Our Client, a pediatric dentist (“T.J.”) with a clean record and excellent practice history, dutifully self-reported an incident where a patient (“Patient”) experienced a seizure after sedation, for reasons which have not yet been ascertained. The Board responded by suspending his sedation certifications, without notice, and dragging him to a Probable Cause Hearing, to explain himself.

With his sedation certifications suspended, T.J. was essentially unable to practice, and the logistical nightmare that ensued placed serious strain on the practice. Never before had our client had any such issues occur from sedation, despite administering the same regimen over 5,000 times.

Through submission of a pre-hearing and post-hearing brief, we were able to convince the Board to abandon its suspension, and dismiss the case from the State Office of Administrative Hearings. Our briefing and performance at the Probable Cause Hearing restored our Client’s sedation certifications, and brought his practice back into ordinary working order.

Texas State Board of Physical Therapy Examiners v. K.F.

Our Client, a Physical Therapist (“K.F.”) with an impeccable and extensive practice history, was alleged to have made racist remarks to a Hispanic patient (“Patient”). K.F. has cherished Hispanic siblings, and was horrified by the baseless allegations lodged against her. Treading in charged territory, we managed to expose and relay to the Board certain subtle matters, which revealed the Patient’s representations were unfounded. Through submission of an expository Response Packet (our proprietary case-opening instrument), we were able to secure a dismissal at the earliest available juncture.

July 2017

Texas Real Estate Commission v. C.L.

Our Client, a real estate broker (“C.L.”), fell victim to a scathing, frivolous complaint filed by a former client, for whom C.L. served as a listing agent. That complaint falsely alleged our Client failed to disclose a high purchase offer, and lied about other matters, to secure an undue payout. Through a Motion for Summary Disposition, we convinced a SOAH judge of the lies, by exposing that the complainant had improper ulterior motives. Accordingly, all allegations apart from a minor technicality were disposed of, and C.L. settled under terms dramatically more favorable than those initially proposed by TREC.

Texas Board of Nursing v. S.L.

Our Client, a traveling RN, was alleged to have diverted controlled substances from a medical facility. By submitting a thorough Response Packet, which explained what actually transpired, we secured an outright dismissal for our Client, at minimal cost.

Texas Medical Board v. R.N.

Our Client was alleged to have viewed inappropriate materials while on duty in a Medical Residency Program. R.N. was severely disciplined by his employer, and faced serious discipline from the Board. At an Informal Settlement Conference before a panel of the Board, we focused on R.N.’s exceptional technical proficiency and history of charitable acts, and secured full dismissal of the allegations.

June 2017

…Another Month of Dismissals

Texas Board of Occupational Therapy Examiners v. S.G.

The Texas Board of Occupational Therapy Examiners (TBOTE) investigated serious allegations from the father of a six-year old patient (“Patient”), that S.G. purportedly shook the child by the neck in a room full of patients and their families. Our investigation found substantial evidence that the Patient’s father exhibited a pattern of volatile behavior, and that S.G. had been explicitly requested to be the only therapist working with the Patient. We further articulated to the Board that S.G.’s twenty-year practice history and professional reputation are wholly at odds with the allegations in the complaint. Apparently, the Board was satisfied with the explanation provided, as the Complaint was dismissed without further proceedings.

Take-away: We shut down a frivolous complaint at the earliest available opportunity, sparing our client unnecessary emotional toll and legal expenses, and protecting her license.

Texas Board of Occupational Therapy Examiners v. V.G.

The Texas Board of Occupational Therapy Examiners (TBOTE) investigated an allegation from V.G.’s former employer that he fraudulently billed for services which he purportedly did not render. This was not the case, and we convinced the Board of as much, solely through submission of a written rebuttal, which marshalled evidence that the complaint lacked integrity, and contained selective stipulations and omissions. The Board dismissed the complaint without taking any further action.

Take-away: The Firm secured a dismissal with a single move.

May 2017

…Another Month of Impressive Results

Texas Real Estate Commission v. J.R.

The Texas Real Estate Commission (TREC) sought to revoke our Client’s real estate sales agent license, for a single non-violent felony, with substantial mitigating circumstances and evidence. Through compelling presentation of arguments at a final SOAH Hearing, the Firm persuaded an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to issue a proposal for decision (PFD), which contemplated permitting our Client to retain his license subject to probation for ten years. TREC improperly altered the PFD, so that it revoked instead of probating our Client’s license. We presented a robust accounting of why what TREC did was a violation, and convinced a District Judge to restore our Client’s license pursuant to a Temporary Injunction.

Take-away: We won our Client’s license back through pendency of appeal to District Court, and thereby enabled him to earn a living and be with his children.

Texas Board of Examiners of Psychologists v. J.G.

Our Client, a recent Ph.D. Psychology graduate, applied for a provisional license to practice as a Psychologist. Due to a misunderstanding of disclosure obligations, our Client inadvertently completed the application improperly. The Board responded by demanding an explanation. We provided a wealth of evidence demonstrating that the failure to disclose was a good faith error, not a pre-meditated ploy, and that our Client possesses exceptional fitness and moral character. The Board dismissed the allegations completely, and permitted our Client to continue to the next phase of the application, without taking any adverse action.

Take-away: The Firm secured a dismissal with a single move.

April 2017

…and the Dismissals Keep Coming

Texas Board of Dental Examiners v. C.B.

Our Client, an Orthodontist (“DMD C.B.”), was alleged to have breached the standard of care. The Firm shut down this allegation immediately, securing an outright dismissal after submitting its proprietary case-opener – the notorious Response Packet. The Firm warded off a complaint and thereby protected DMD C.B.’s license at minimal cost.

Take-away: The Firm secured a dismissal with a single move.

Texas Board of Social Worker Examiners v. T.H.

Our Client, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW T.H.), was alleged to have had a sexual relationship with a former patient. The Firm shut down the Board’s allegation immediately, securing an outright dismissal after submitting a Response Packet. The Firm protected LCSW T.H.’s license at minimal cost.

Take-away: The Firm secured a dismissal with a single move.

March 2017

A Month of Dimsissals: The Firm Secures Maximum Results at Minimal Cost

Texas Board of Nursing v. D.F.

Our Client, a Licensed Vocational Nurse, was alleged to have fallen asleep on duty. LVN DF initially responded to the Board’s allegations without legal representation. The Board replied by proposing an Agreed Order which would have required LVN DF to abandon working in home health, abandoning her beloved patients and plans to establish a home health practice this year. Shortly after being engaged by LVN DF, the Firm submitted its proprietary Response Packet, and secured an outright dismissal of the allegation. The Firm protected LVN DF’s license at minimal cost.

Take-away: The Firm secured a dismissal with a single move.

Texas Board of Nursing v. C.R.

Our Client, a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist with a Doctorate in Nursing Practice, was alleged to have improperly counseled an elderly patient with severe co-morbidities on the risks of general anesthesia. The Board went so far as to allege that the patient’s subsequent traumatic incidents were related to CRNA CR’s conduct. The Firm shut down the Board’s allegations immediately, securing an outright dismissal upon submission of a Response Packet. The Firm protected CRNA CR’s license at minimal cost.

Take-away: The Firm secured a dismissal with a single move.

February 2017

Strong Results Which Alleviate Need for Hearings

Our Client, Willie Lee Griffin, Jr. and Griffin Mortuary, is finally vindicated by the Texas Funeral Service Commission and a Lubbock County Civil Court.

A lawsuit brought against Willie Lee Griffin, Jr., owner and founder of Griffin Mortuary in Lubbock, was tossed out of civil court on Friday morning with no finding of fault. Our Firm secured the win after a week-long jury trial. Mr. Griffin and our legal team worked very hard on this case and it is so rewarding to finally vindicate his name. But the story of vindicating the revered funeral home and its charismatic owner spans far longer.

In late 2013, Charlette Tanner-Starr and Marcie Hall filed a complaint with the Texas Funeral Service Commission, alleging that Mr. Griffin mishandled the funeral of their father, the late Pastor Charles Tanner. The Commission – the authority on funerary practice standards – tossed the complaint with no finding of fault. Apparently unsatisfied, Ms. Tanner-Starr and Ms. Hall, the plaintiffs, filed a civil lawsuit against Mr. Griffin in early 2015, seeking $2,000,000 for alleged mental anguish. Just days later, the plaintiffs and their attorneys made a series of press releases against Mr. Griffin on KMAC and everythinglubbock.com.

Although several Lubbock residents were prepared to testify in Mr. Griffin’s defense, the case was tossed before the opportunity even arose. After the verdict was reached, interviews with the jurors revealed that Mr. Griffin’s testimony about his passion for serving the Lubbock community hit home. After nearly two years of litigation and hours of witness testimony, the record has been set straight. The plaintiffs received a take-nothing verdict, and are liable for court costs.

December 2016

Texas Board of Nursing v. T.N.

Our Client, a Registered Nurse, was alleged to have breached professional boundaries. To settle the matter, the Board proposed an Agreed Order which entailed language susceptible to damaging insinuations and inferences, as well as crippling restrictions on our Client’s ability to practice for a full year. Through multiple rounds of negotiation, the Firm obtained significant, favorable modifications to the proposed Order. The Firm not only substantially reduced the restrictions, but also secured language amendments that dispelled the adverse insinuations and inferences.

Take-away: Through efficient negotiation, the Firm prevented potentially irreparable damage to our Client’s public reputation, and diminished restrictions on our Client’s capacity to earn a living.

Texas Real Estate Commission v. B.P.

Our Client, who has a non-violent felony and some misdemeanors on his record, attempted to obtain a real estate sales license without legal representation. The Commission rejected the application, and provided our Client with an opportunity to request a hearing on the rejection. The Firm was retained at this juncture. Almost immediately after submitting a request for a hearing, a Commission staff attorney contacted the Firm to negotiate an alternative. The Firm pursued this alternative, and secured a license for our Client on a probationary basis through submission of a single instrument. Our Client now has a livelihood that is more rewarding and lucrative.

Take-away: The Firm secured a license – and by extension, a new livelihood – for our Client at absolute bare minimum expense.

November 2016

Texas Real Estate Commission v. J.R.

Our Client, a proficient real estate agent, plead out of a non-violent felony charge entirely unrelated to the practice of real estate. The Commission sought to revoke our Client’s license, and refused to make any settlement offer. After the final hearing on the merits, both parties submitted closing briefs for the consideration of the presiding Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

On November 9, 2016, the ALJ propounded a Proposal for Decision (PFD) that contemplates allowing our Client to retain his license. This favorable PFD demonstrates that the ALJ found the Firm’s defense more persuasive than the Commission’s claim.

Upon receipt of the PFD, the Firm wasted no time in drafting and filing Exceptions to the PFD, within which the Firm presented legal authority and analysis to the ALJ warranting further reduction of the sanction. The Commission neither responded to the Exceptions, nor filed their own. The Commission’s silence signals their assent to the Firm’s successful efforts to ward off the unreasonable revocation attempt.

Take-away: Through our tactful, aggressive litigation and trial strategy, the Firm persuaded the ALJ, against the odds, to allow our Client to retain his livelihood.

Texas Board of Nursing v. N.J.

Our Client, a Registered Nurse, conceded to the Board’s allegations prior to retaining the Firm. The Board proposed a settlement offer, called an Agreed Board Order (ABO), that was extremely adverse, and would have severely limited the scope of prospective employers. This ABO contained a skewed and misleading presentation of the facts at issue, which would have been attached to our Client’s public nursing profile. Our Client retained the Firm to negotiate this settlement offer.

And the Firm did just that: through extensive correspondence with the Board, the Firm negotiated a far more favorable settlement offer. Specifically, the Firm submitted two waves of Exceptions to the ABO, both of which yielded success. The amended ABO reflecting these Exceptions broadens the scope of indirect supervisors and entails a dramatically more favorable presentation of the facts at issue.

Take-away: The Firm’s successful negotiation broadened our Client’s employment options and minimized the impact on our Client’s livelihood.

October 2016

E.R.G. v. R.V.

Following an aggressive deposition campaign conducted by the Firm, the parties have begun initial discussions that may lead to settlement of the case. The Firm intends to take the lead in brokering this arrangement. If successful, this proposed settlement could save our client substantial resources at an early juncture in the case.

C.S. & M.H. v. W.G.

Our Client, a funeral service director, was alleged to have breached the standard of care. Following dismissal of the complaint by the Funeral Service Commission, the complainants have pursued a civil claim against our Client. In the latest of a series of victories, the Firm has filed a MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT against the Plaintiffs. Due largely to successful depositions, the grounds for this motion have been pled to an evidentiary standard far greater than required. If successful, this Motion will eviscerate Plaintiffs’ case and tilt the odds further in our Client’s favor.

September 2016

Texas Board of Nursing v. S.H., CRNA

The Firm’s aggressive discovery campaign has paid off for our client, with handsome dividends.

The Board alleged that our Client fell asleep during a laparoscopic procedure. The Firm realized a material fact unbeknownst to the Board, which fundamentally altered the landscape of the case. The Firm began building a new defense theory upon this material fact. Through written discovery, the Firm also surmised that the complaints that initiated the Board’s investigation were factually dubious. The Firm followed up on this hunch by deposing the complainants this month.

The Firm’s pointed questioning ultimately elicited testimony that substantiated the Firm’s suspicion; it was revealed that each complainant had indeed made material misrepresentations to the Board. Following this revelation, the Firm zeroed in for the kill, holding another round of depositions to test its new defense theory. The testimony elicited at these depositions unequivocally endorsed the new defense theory. Two business days later, the Board filed a Motion to Dismiss the case.

July 2016

Texas Board of Physical Therapy Examiners v. C.C., PT, DPT

The Board alleged that our client abandoned a patient, and the Firm secured outright dismissal of all allegations. Specifically, submission of a rebuttal packet and presentation of oral arguments at an Informal Settlement Conference (ISC) compelled the Board to grant dismissal. ISCs are conducted at a very early juncture in the course of cases before the State Office of Administration. Thus, the Firm completely prevented adverse action by the Board in short order and at minimal cost to our client.

Texas Board of Nursing v. K.W., RN

The Board alleged that our client breached the standard of patient care. Solely through submission of a robust rebuttal packet, the Firm secured outright dismissal of all allegations against our client. Once again, the Firm completely prevented adverse action by the Board at minimal cost to our client, this time at the earliest possible juncture.