CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 06-17-00093-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2018

Jessica Growden, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Good Shepherd Health System, the Good Shepherd Hospital, Inc., and Good Shepherd Medical Center

Jessica Growden sued Good Shepherd Medical Center as a class action after being charged an allegedly unreasonable amount for her daughter's emergency room visit. Growden, uninsured, sought a declaratory judgment that the hospital's contract only allowed billing for the reasonable value of services. Good Shepherd waived Growden's bill before class certification and moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to mootness. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Court of Appeals applied the "picking-off exception" to the mootness doctrine, finding that Good Shepherd's waiver was a litigation strategy. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Growden's class-action claims and her individual claim for attorney fees under the Declaratory Judgments Act, remanding for further proceedings, while affirming the trial court's judgment in all other respects.

Class ActionMootness DoctrinePicking-off ExceptionDeclaratory Judgment ActAttorney FeesSubject-Matter JurisdictionMedical Billing DisputeHospital Emergency ServicesContractual LiabilityAppellate Procedure
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Leake

Appellee H. B. Leake sued appellant Texas Employers’ Insurance Association to overturn an Industrial Accident Board award and seek compensation for a 1935 back injury. Leake filed his claim nine years later, alleging "good cause" due to initial belief of trivial injury and doctors misdiagnosing his condition as rheumatism, a claim supported by a jury verdict. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment, ruling that Leake’s testimony, even when viewed favorably, failed to establish "good cause" for the extensive delay. The court highlighted that Leake knew of his injury from the start, suffered continuous pain, and notably withheld injury details from his consulted physicians. Furthermore, a two-year period following a varicose vein operation lacked any documented "good cause" for continued delay in filing, solidifying the court's decision to render judgment for the appellant.

Delayed Claim FilingGood Cause ExceptionStatute of LimitationsWorkman's CompensationBack InjuryMedical MisdiagnosisPermanent Total IncapacityAppellate ReviewReversed and RenderedIndustrial Accident Board
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. DiNapoli

The case concerns a petitioner seeking to excuse the notice requirement for a disability retirement claim. The petitioner argued that either a workers' compensation claim or a 'good cause' exception should apply. The court found that the workers' compensation claim was not filed within the statutory timeframe, and the Workers’ Compensation Board’s subsequent decision to excuse its untimeliness was not binding on the respondent. Regarding the good cause exception, the petitioner failed to notify the employer of the injury or disability within 30 days of the occurrence, as required by regulation, instead waiting a year. The court upheld the respondent's interpretation that the notice event is the occurrence of the disability, not its diagnosis. Consequently, substantial evidence supported the respondent’s denial of the good cause exception, and the petition was dismissed.

Disability RetirementWorkers' CompensationNotice RequirementGood Cause ExceptionTimelinessEmployer NotificationOccupational DisabilityAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewRetirement and Social Security Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spinella v. Town of Paris Zoning Board of Appeals

The respondents moved to dismiss the petition alleging petitioners failed to submit a proposed judgment within 60 days, deeming it abandoned. Petitioners' counsel, a qualified individual with a visual disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act, argued that his impairment constituted 'good cause' for the delay. He sought reasonable accommodation, citing past accommodations for the bar exam and law school, as well as an increased workload due to a lost secretary. The court found that the counsel's visual impairment indeed served as good cause for noncompliance with the established time limits. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was denied, and the proposed judgment was signed, recognizing the extension of time as a reasonable accommodation.

Americans with Disabilities ActADADisability AccommodationJudicial DiscretionProcedural RulesTime LimitsGood CauseVisual ImpairmentAttorney DisabilityCourt Procedure
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1997

In re the Claim of Mustaqur Rahman

The claimant, employed by a temporary agency for six months, resigned alleging co-worker harassment. He admitted not discussing his concerns with the employer prior to resigning. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found he voluntarily left his employment without good cause, noting that continuing work and reassignment options were available had he informed the employer. The Board's decision was affirmed on appeal, reinforcing that co-worker conflicts do not constitute good cause for leaving employment, especially when the employer is not notified beforehand.

Unemployment InsuranceVoluntary ResignationGood CauseHarassmentEmployer NotificationBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewCo-worker ConflictDisqualificationEmployment Benefits
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Bonilla

Claimant, a postal worker, was arrested for threatening suicide and subsequently required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation by releasing his medical records to determine his fitness for duty. He refused to release these records, which prevented the completion of the psychiatric examination and ultimately led to him not being permitted to return to work. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board then disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, ruling that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. This decision was based on the premise that a claimant who fails to take a reasonably required step as a prerequisite to continued employment is deemed to have voluntarily left their job without good cause. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Voluntary separationUnemployment benefitsGood cause for leaving employmentMedical records releaseFitness for dutyPsychiatric evaluationPostal workerDisqualification from benefitsSubstantial evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2003

In re the Claim of Kohen

The claimant, a social worker, filed a complaint against her employer with the Division of Human Rights alleging religious harassment. Despite continued problems, including a high-risk pregnancy, she resigned in June 2003, citing dissatisfaction with the work environment and unfair treatment. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, concluding she voluntarily left without good cause. The court affirmed this decision, reiterating that dissatisfaction with one's working environment does not constitute good cause for leaving employment.

Unemployment BenefitsVoluntary ResignationGood CauseWork EnvironmentHarassmentPregnancyAppealSocial WorkerDissatisfactionUnfair Treatment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Elkan-Moore

The case involves a claimant's appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled she was disqualified from receiving benefits due to voluntarily leaving her employment without good cause. The claimant, a museum director for five years, contended she resigned due to distress over allegations by a former Board of Trustees president and ongoing harassment from staff. However, the court found that issues with co-workers do not constitute good cause for leaving. An investigation had cleared the claimant of the allegations, and the Board was actively working to resolve the situation and retain her. The court ultimately affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant left her job due to general dissatisfaction with work conditions.

Unemployment InsuranceVoluntary QuittingGood CauseJob DissatisfactionWorkplace HarassmentBoard of TrusteesEmployer-Employee RelationsAppellate ReviewBenefit DisqualificationClaimant Appeal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Ford Motor Co.

Joey W. Johnson appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit against Ford Motor Company, Inc., where he sought damages for wrongful termination, breach of various employment contracts, tort of bad faith, and fraud. The trial court had sustained Ford's special exceptions, finding Johnson failed to state a claim, upholding Ford's position that Johnson was an "at-will" employee. On appeal, Justice Dickenson's court determined that Johnson's Fourth Amended Original Petition alleged specific contract terms contradicting the "at-will" doctrine, particularly that his employment would not be terminated except for good cause. The court emphasized that such allegations, taken as true, could state a cause of action, and if proven, would mean Johnson's employment was no longer "at will." Consequently, the order of dismissal was reversed, and the cause remanded for trial.

Employment LawWrongful TerminationContract LawBreach of ContractAt-Will EmploymentOral ContractsAppellate ReviewSpecial ExceptionsRemandTexas Law
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 7,961 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational