Mohammed Fawwaz Shoukfeh, M.D., P.A., D/B/A Texas Cardiac Center v. James G. Grattan and Texas Workforce Commission
07-15-00113-CV
| Tex. Crim. App. | Jul 1, 2015Background
- Grattan (cardiologist) employed by Texas Cardiac under a written June 19, 2006 agreement that set compensation as a percentage of designated revenue and required payment of a pro rata share of practice overhead.
- Overhead shares changed when a fourth physician joined in Nov. 2012; Texas Cardiac nonetheless deducted overhead from Grattan as if only three physicians were sharing costs.
- Grattan filed a wage claim with the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) for unpaid wages for Sept. 2012–Apr. 2013; the TWC ultimately awarded $125,988.91.
- Texas Cardiac sued to overturn the TWC decision; the trial court granted summary judgment for the TWC and Grattan; Texas Cardiac appealed.
- Central dispute: interpretation and application of “pro rata share of overhead expenses” in the employment agreement and whether TWC’s award was supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports the TWC decision | TWC/Grattan: TWC decision is supported by credible evidence and prior practice; pro rata means divide overhead among all physicians | Texas Cardiac: TWC misread contract; pro rata should be calculated among three physicians because the new physician was not similarly situated | Held: Substantial evidence supports the TWC award; trial court affirmed summary judgment for TWC/Grattan |
| Proper meaning of “pro rata share of overhead expenses” | Grattan: term means proportionate share among all physicians; dictionary and practice support dividing by total physicians | Texas Cardiac: exclusion for the new physician; overhead should be split among three | Held: Court relied on dictionary meaning and past custom to support TWC’s interpretation |
| Liability for withholding wages without authorization | TWC/Grattan: Labor Code bars withholding wages except when authorized; Texas Cardiac’s deductions exceeded agreement | Texas Cardiac: TWC’s order improperly imposes obligations to deduct from other physicians (Qaddour) | Held: Only Grattan–Texas Cardiac contract governs; TWC did not require altering Qaddour’s contract; Texas Cardiac cannot shift its costs to Grattan |
| Summary judgment standard on agency decision review | TWC: judicial review is de novo on record to determine if substantial evidence supports agency finding; agency decision presumed valid | Texas Cardiac: urged court to reweigh evidence to adopt its method | Held: Court applies substantial-evidence standard; as long as reasonable support exists, agency decision stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Bollner v. Plastics Solutions of Texas, Inc., 270 S.W.3d 157 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2008) (dictionary/extrinsic evidence used to interpret contractual terms)
- City of San Antonio v. Flores, 619 S.W.2d 601 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1981) (courts must defer to reasonable administrative findings)
- Collingsworth Gen. Hosp. v. Hunnicut, 988 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1998) (presumption of validity for agency decisions in judicial review)
- Olivarez v. Aluminum Corp. of Am., 693 S.W.2d 931 (Tex. 1985) (substantial-evidence standard defined—not requiring preponderance)
- Tex. Aeronautics Comm’n v. Braniff Airways, Inc., 454 S.W.2d 199 (Tex. 1970) (if agency action is reasonable, courts must uphold it)