Dan Lype, Attorney

Dan Lype joined the Leichter Law Firm in 2008 after graduating from law school at the University of Texas in Austin and has been at the Firm longer than any other attorney besides the Firm’s founder, Louis Leichter. Born and raised in Illinois in the St. Louis metro area, Mr. Lype moved to Austin to attend law school and immediately fell in love with the city and Texas.

Mr. Lype’s practice focuses on administrative and health care law with a primary emphasis on professional license defense and administrative appeals and challenges to agency rulemaking. He has represented clients before numerous state and federal agencies including the Texas Medical Board, Texas Board of Nursing, Texas State Board of Dental Examiners, Texas Department of Insurance, and Drug Enforcement Administration. A substantial portion of Mr. Lype’s practice concentrates on state and federal pharmacy law as he routinely defends pharmacies and pharmacists before the Texas State Board of Pharmacy and helps guide pharmacies through the complexities of opening and operating in the State of Texas. Mr. Lype has extensive experience handling advanced litigation at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) and has played a key role in multiple declaratory judgment actions and administrative appeals filed challenging proposed disciplinary sanctions or agency rulemaking.

Education

• 2008- Doctor of Jurisprudence, University of Texas School of Law at Austin
  • Graduated with Honors
• 2004- Bachelor of the Arts in History and Political Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • Phi Beta Kappa
  • Robert H. Bierma Memorial Scholar in History
  • Edmund James Scholar
    
    

State Bar of Texas

• Administrative Law Section
• Health Law Section
  
  

Representative Cases

• AP v. Texas Pharmacy Association and Professional Recovery Network — After client received a favorable evaluation through the Professional Recovery Network (PRN), the Texas State Board of Pharmacy ordered her to undergo a second PRN evaluation. The client refused given the lack of any legitimate cause for a second evaluation. In response, Pharmacy Board scheduled a Show Cause Hearing at the State Office of Administrative Hearings to force a second evaluation. To defend the client, the Firm subpoenaed records from PRN related to client’s initial positive evaluation. PRN refused to produce the subpoenaed records and filed a declaratory judgment action against client in Travis County District Court seeking an order allowing them to withhold documents and asking for attorneys’ fees. Following a full hearing, the Court ordered PRN to comply with the subpoena and pay client’s costs and attorneys’ fees. Client’s case later dismissed with no disciplinary action.
  
  
• TW v. Texas State Board of Pharmacy — The Texas State Board of Pharmacy instituted a disciplinary action against pharmacist client based on the suspension of her license in North Carolina for alcohol abuse and non-compliance with that state’s peer assistance program. After a full contested case proceeding, the administrative law judge issued a favorable Proposal for Decision finding client was now sober, in good recovery, and safe to practice as a pharmacist. Pharmacy Board rejects Proposal for Decision and indefinitely suspended client’s Texas license until their North Carolina suspension has been lifted. Firm filed petition for review in Travis County District Court and obtained temporary injunction followed by final judgment overturning suspension. The Pharmacy Board appealed decision to the Austin Court of Appeals which upheld lower court’s judgment following oral argument. A petition for review is presently pending before the Supreme Court of Texas.
  
  
• PABAT v. Texas Medical Board — The Texas Legislature passed new statutes governing certain health care entities co-owned by a physician assistant and physician. Importantly, legislation includes a grandfather clause exempting already existing physician-physician assistant co-owned entities. The Texas Medical Board adopted administrative rules which radically departed from the statute and eviscerated grandfather clause implemented by Legislature. Threatened with the destruction of their grandfathered entities, a group of physician assistants banded together and filed a declaratory judgment action in Travis County District Court seeking to invalidate the Medical Board’s rules. The District Court entered judgment invalidating Board’s rules with the decision subsequently being upheld by the Austin Court of Appeals.
  
  
• KD v. Texas Medical Board — Texas Medical Board opened multiple investigations against physician based on hospital peer review. Complaints included numerous standard of care violations across over a dozen different patients and discipline by peers. All complaints dismissed over the course of several informal settlement conferences with the Medical Board.
  
  
• SM v. Texas Medical Board — Physician with alleged positive test for alcohol was automatically revoked by the Texas Medical Board under provisions of client’s pre-existing disciplinary order. Case appealed to Travis County District Court where physician’s revocation overturned as low level positive test for ethyl sulfate was not substantial evidence of the intentional ingestion of alcohol.
  
  
• DD v. Texas Board of Nursing — Client accused of using improper language and line of questioning while interviewing patient at a juvenile lock-down facility who reported being raped by another teenager. Case taken to trial at the State Office of Administrative Hearings where Administrative Law Judge issued a Proposal for Decision in favor of client. Case subsequently dismissed by the Board of Nursing with no disciplinary action.
  
  
• HE v. Texas Board of Nursing — Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse Practitioner was accused of failing to properly diagnose patient with post-traumatic stress disorder and falsifying patient’s medical records. Case dismissed after filing of a response showing diagnosis of bipolar disorder was well-supported and demonstrating complaint filed in bad faith by patient.
  
  
• TS v. Texas Board of Nursing — Board institutes action against client based on her alleged failure to comply with a Texas Peer Assistance Program for Nurses contract and extensive history of demerol and dilaudid abuse. The Board was also concerned that client’s disease of chemical dependency was being managed with suboxone. Following the presentation of remedial evidence verifying client’s sobriety and a positive evaluation by an expert, client became the first nurse in Texas permitted to continue practicing while also taking suboxone pursuant to treatment by an addictionologist.
  
  
• GT v. Texas Board of Nursing — RN accused of falsifying home health records and failing to make scheduled patient visits. Case proceeded to trial at State Office of Administrative Hearings where evidence suggested allegations and records had been fabricated by client’s employer who was retaliating based on client’s refusal to make false records during state audit of home health company. Administrative Law Judge found for client on all counts and her case was dismissed by Texas Board of Nursing.
  
  
• JD v. Texas Real Estate Commission — Client illegally denied renewal of real estate salesperson license due to alleged failure to disclose misdemeanor offense on license renewal application. Texas Real Estate Commission would not renew client’s license unless he agreed to disciplinary order. In response, Firm filed a petition for declaratory judgment in Travis County District Court seeking a judgment ordering the Commission to renew license as required by law. Immediately after the petition was filed Commission retroactively renewed client’s license and withdrew proposed disciplinary action against licensee.