Facts: CR hired Bertolino LLP to defend him when the Texas Department of Savings and Mortgage Lending (TDSML) refused to renew his license as a mortgage originator. TDSML’s decision to deny renewal of the license threatened CR’s livelihood and ability to continue working in his chosen field where he had developed a significant network and extensive subject …
Case Results and Hallmark Achievements
Our results speak for themselves. In case after case, the attorneys at our Texas-based law firm have successfully helped clients resolve a wide range of complicated legal matters involving professional license defense, medical license defense, and vocational license defense. We know how to build a strong case to protect your license – and your livelihood. To read what some of our satisfied clients have to say about us, please visit our testimonials page.
Call TodayTexas Medical Board v. AG
Facts: AG hired Bertolino LLP to defend her against a complaint filed with the Board by a patient. The patient made unfounded allegations that AG had committed malpractice and failed to provide the patient with information about her medical procedure and acquire her informed consent. The baseless complaint threatened to damage AG’s professional reputation and employment, expose her …
Texas Board of Nursing v. FD
Facts: Our client, FD hired us to assist in obtaining his Texas nursing license after he passed the NCLEX. Our client passed the NCLEX but after the four year period established by the Board and as a result the Board denied his nursing license. Outcome: The firm evaluated the relevant documentation, enabling statutes and Board …
City Council v. HEPE
Facts: HEPE hired firm after they were denied a permit to operate by the city council. The city had not been enforcing certain city ordinances regarding operation and was issuing some operations permits in error of the ordinances. HEPE appealed and asked to be given a permit since they had been operating without issue since 2020 …
Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation v. ZZ
Facts: ZZ hired firm after receiving 2 complaints. These were ZZ’s 3rd and 4th complaints overall during her time as a massage therapist and massage establishment owner. The allegations in the new complaint were essentially identical to the allegations in ZZ’s 1st and 2nd complaints. The allegations involved employing unlicensed workers, not keeping records and allowing people to sleep at …
Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation v. ZA
Facts: ZA hired firm after his application for renewal of licensure was denied due to a recent conviction. ZA was convicted of burglary. Outcome: The firm requested a hearing and provided a supplemental response to the proposed denial. In the response the firm argued that the incident was isolated in nature, domestically related and not an event …
Texas Board for Physical Therapy Examiners v. MA
Facts: MA received a complaint from a former patient. The patient alleged that MA injured her back and side during a session. Outcome: The firm provided a robust response including all medical records from the patient’s file showing that MA only met with the patient on 2 minor occasions and that the patient’s issues were ongoing over …
School District v. CA
Facts: Client hired firm after she was put on leave by her school district. The district placed her on paid leave to finish out the remainder of the school year. CA was placed on leave after it was alleged that she pushed a student down a flight of steps. CA provided a statement prior to hiring …
Texas Medical Board v. WD
Facts: WD hired firm to assist in the submission of his application for licensure with TMB. WD had several criminal issues that he needed to report and provide records for. WD had 4 prior arrests, one deferred adjudication and one conviction all related to alcohol. Outcome: The firm crafted responses to several questions on the TMB application …
Texas Behavioral Health Executive Council v. BT
Facts: BT received a complaint and hired firm to assist in responding to the complaint and pending investigation. It was alleged that BT practiced without supervision in violation of BHEC rules and statutes which prevent LPC-As from practicing without the supervision of a LPC. BT practiced without supervision for almost 6 months before the complaint was …