Jose A. Perez v. Texas Medical Board and Mari Robinson, JD, in Her Official Capacity, 03-14-00644-CV

Perez, pro se appellant, appeals Third Court of Appeals from a Travis County trial court decision involving the Texas Medical Board (TMB) and Mari Robinson; he challenges TMB rules alleged to revoke his right to practice as a physician assistant by default proceedings.
Perez asserts constitutional and statutory authority of TMB to revoke his livelihood, including through purported default proceedings and ad hoc rulemaking.
He filed an amended initial brief and a motion for rehearing at the agency, then pursued judicial review contending the agency’s rulemaking and decision-making violated constitutional rights.
Appellees are the Texas Medical Board and Mari Robinson in her official capacity; counsel includes Ted A. Ross, Assistant Attorney General.
Perez argues for reversal/remand and later seeks leave to amend to name Mari Robinson in her individual capacity; oral argument was waived.
The brief discusses waiver, constitutionality, exclusive jurisdiction, and potential amendments as core issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Perez properly challenged the TMB rule and its authority	Perez contends he challenged constitutional/APA authority to revoke livelihood	Appellees contend the issue was not properly pled as an APA challenge	Raised properly; pleadings gave notice and merit consideration in appeal
Whether Perez waived the right to confront witnesses by seeking declaratory relief	Perez did not waive rights by declaratory relief	Waiver defense stands	Waiver not established; rights remain under consideration
Whether Perez has a constitutional and common-law right to have the Constitution applied as intended	Constitutional framework governs licensure and due process; 1876 framework preserved	PALA and others govern licensure; Constitution argument limited	Constitutional/common-law rights properly asserted and considered
Whether exclusive jurisdiction applies when constitutional claims exist after final agency decision	Exclusive jurisdiction does not bar constitutional challenges post-decision	Exclusive jurisdiction applies to certain administrative contexts	Doctrine does not bar review of constitutional claims in this context
Whether dismissal with prejudice was improper and whether leave to amend to sue Mari Robinson individually is meritorious	Dismissal improper; amendment to name Robinson individually should be allowed	Dismissal may be proper; amendments not necessarily warranted	Dismissal with prejudice improper; leave to amend meritorious

Texas State Board of Pharmacy v. Witcher, 447 S.W.3d 520 (Tex. 3rd DCA 2014) (constitutional challenge to agency rule; contested-case procedures)
WBD Oil & Gas Co. v. Railroad Commission of Texas, 35 S.W.3d 34 (Tex.App. 1999) (exclusive jurisdiction and administrative decision review)
Amarillo Oil Co. v. Energy-Agri Prods., Inc., 794 S.W.2d 20 (Tex. 1990) (exclusive jurisdiction and administrative remedy)
Cypress Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Texas Education Agency, 830 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. 1992) (exclusive jurisdiction doctrine in education context)
Damico v. California, 389 U.S. 416 (1967) (per curiam; due process context for administrative actions)
McNeese v. Board of Educ., Community Unit Sch. Dist. 187, 373 U.S. 668 (1963) (due process and right to earn living; administrative action limits)
Tatro v. Texas, 703 F.2d 823 (5th Cir. 1983) (common-law authority to delegate medical authority pre-regulation)
Rodriguez v. Service Lloyds Ins. Co., 997 S.W.2d 248 (Tex. 1999) (statutory review and administrative procedures)
Railroad Commission of Texas v. WBD Oil & Gas Co., 104 S.W.3d 69 (Tex. 2003) (agency action review and jurisdiction)
Republican Party of Texas v. Dietz, 940 S.W.2d 86 (Tex. 1997) (constitutional construction and separation of powers)