for compensation, we must still determine whether the Act itself permits successive applications. Blair contends that the Act places no limit on the number of applications he may file seeking the same compensation, as long as he files them within the statute’s three-year limitation period. The Comptroller argues that the Act prohibits successive applications, at least in the absence of an intervening material change in circumstances, because holding otherwise “could lead to the futile filing of seriatim applications of the same denied claim despite no changed circumstances during the Act’s three-year limitations period, forcing the Comptroller to re-deny the same claim over and over again.” See Young Trucking, Inc. v. R.R. Comm’n, 781 S.W.2d 719, 721 (Tex.App.-Austin 1989, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Justice Hecht agrees with Blair; I agree with
holding that an administrative agency is not subject to a contempt proceeding for failure to comply with an order holding the court has the inherent authority to enter an order of confidentiality holding that once an order becomes administratively final an agency does not have inherent authority to reopen the proceeding and can reconsider its order only if provided for by statute or on a showing of changed circumstances recognizing that an order denying a motion to modify a family court order where the motion is based on changed factual or legal circumstances is appealable as a special order after final judgment holding that there can be only one final appealable order