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. 2021 NY Slip Op 01050 [191 AD3d 884]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2021

Matter of Faith A. M. (Faith M.)

The mother, Faith M., appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which found her to have derivatively neglected her child, Faith A.M. This finding stemmed from a prior neglect determination in May 2014 concerning her other children due to excessive corporal punishment, which the court deemed proximate in time to the current proceeding. The evidence presented, including statements from siblings, testimony from a school counselor, and observations of injuries, corroborated the ongoing use of excessive corporal punishment. The Family Court's assessment of the mother's credibility, finding her denials incredible, was supported by the record, reinforced by her guilty plea to disorderly conduct related to similar allegations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, as the mother failed to provide evidence that the circumstances leading to the neglect finding no longer existed.

Child NeglectDerivative NeglectCorporal PunishmentFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewParental JudgmentPreponderance of EvidenceCredibilityPrior FindingsRisk of Harm
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2014

Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

This Opinion & Order addresses a class and collective action filed by plaintiff Maxcimo Scott against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Minimum Wage Act due to the misclassification of "apprentices" as exempt from overtime pay. Chipotle asserted statutory good faith defenses under 29 U.S.C. §§ 259 and 260 but sought a protective order to prevent discovery of attorney-client communications, claiming it did not rely on legal advice. The court, presided over by U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, ruled that Chipotle's invocation of good faith defenses implicitly waived attorney-client privilege, as the advice of counsel was central to evaluating the sincerity of these defenses. Consequently, the court denied Chipotle's motion for a protective order, compelling the production of relevant privileged documents. Additionally, the decision permits discovery into Chipotle's differing classification of apprentices in California, deeming it relevant to the issue of willfulness and good faith in other states.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Minimum Wage Act (NYLL)Overtime CompensationWage and Hour DisputesClass Action LawsuitAttorney-Client PrivilegeAt-Issue WaiverGood Faith DefenseProtective Order MotionEmployment Misclassification
References
32
Case No. ADJ6889455
Regular
Jun 10, 2011

SALVADOR RUIZ vs. WASTE CONNECTIONS INC., ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a psychiatric injury claim where the employer asserted a good faith personnel action defense. The Board found the employer failed to prove the personnel action was in good faith, noting evidence of racial animus and inconsistent disciplinary practices. Furthermore, even if the action were deemed in good faith, the employer did not meet its burden of proving it was a substantial cause (35-40%) of the applicant's psychiatric injury, as the medical evidence did not apportion causation. Therefore, the defense under Labor Code section 3208.3(h) was not established.

Labor Code section 3208.3(h)psychiatric injurygood faith personnel actionsubstantial causeobjective reasonablenesspretextualagreed medical evaluatorcausation apportionmentmedical evidencediscriminatory
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sisk v. Sara Lee Corp.

This case involves a lawsuit filed by employees, Theorda Randle and William Binder, against Bryan Foods Incorporated, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs sought unpaid wages for time spent donning, doffing, and cleaning specialized personal protective equipment (PPE) and other pre- and post-shift activities at Bryan's West Point, Mississippi plant. Bryan moved for summary judgment, asserting that FLSA section 3(o) precluded compensation for these activities and that it had a complete defense under 29 U.S.C. § 259 due to good faith reliance on Department of Labor (DOL) interpretations. The Court determined that the specialized PPE qualified as "clothes" under section 3(o) and found a customary practice of non-compensation beyond ten minutes under a collective bargaining agreement. Furthermore, the Court concluded that Bryan successfully invoked the good faith defense, having relied in good faith on, and acted in conformity with, the 2002 DOL opinion letter. Consequently, the Court granted Bryan's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.

FLSAFair Labor Standards ActSummary JudgmentDonning and DoffingProtective Personal Equipment (PPE)Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Department of Labor (DOL) Opinion LettersGood Faith DefensePortal-to-Portal ActCompensable Time
References
36
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. ADJ6784503-M; ADJ7336025
Regular
Aug 24, 2012

WILLIAM AGUILAR vs. TIME WARNER CABLE INC.

This case involves William Aguilar's claim for psychiatric injury against Time Warner Cable, stemming from two periods of employment. The Administrative Law Judge found Aguilar sustained industrial psychiatric injuries in both roles and ruled the defendant waived the "good faith personnel action" defense under Labor Code section 3208.3(h). While the majority affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the defense was not raised properly and not proven even if considered, Commissioner Lowe dissented. Commissioner Lowe argued the defense was timely raised and that the employer's reassignment of territories constituted a good faith personnel action, thereby barring compensation.

Labor Code 3208.3(h)Good Faith Personnel ActionPsychiatric InjuryCumulative Industrial InjuryReconsiderationWCJ ReportDissenting OpinionObjective Good Faith StandardSubstantial CausePredominant Cause
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. v. Hale

Linda Hale sued E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing after E-Z Mart stopped paying her workers' compensation benefits following a workplace injury. E-Z Mart, a nonsubscriber to the Workers' Compensation Act, had implemented a self-insurance program, assuring employees that claims would be handled like traditional workers' compensation. The jury found E-Z Mart breached its contract and duty of good faith, and the trial court awarded Hale significant damages. On appeal, E-Z Mart argued no contract existed and that the duty of good faith did not apply to a self-insured entity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, deeming the existence of an implied contract and holding that E-Z Mart, by assuming the role of an insurer, was subject to the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The court also rejected E-Z Mart's statute of limitations defense.

Workers' CompensationSelf-InsuranceBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingImplied ContractTexas LawStatute of LimitationsEmployer LiabilityEmployee BenefitsAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. 05-20-00859-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2022

Full of Faith Christian Center, Inc., Full of Faith Christian Center Ministries, Full of Faith Christian Center Ministries, Inc., Calvin Ray Calhoun, and Peggy Calhoun v. Kenneth May & Desire Ophelia Fuentes-May

Kenneth May and Desire Ophelia Fuentes-May (Appellees) sued Full of Faith Christian Center, Inc. and related entities/individuals (Appellants) for nuisance, trespass, negligence, and unlawful diversion of water. A no-answer default judgment was entered against Appellants. Appellants challenged the default judgment, raising issues with citation, substituted service, and an unserved supplemental petition, among others. The appellate court found service and citation were not defective and upheld the denial of the motion for new trial on most grounds. However, the court reversed the award of punitive damages against appellants jointly and severally, remanding for a new trial solely on exemplary damages, and affirmed the trial court's judgment in all other respects.

Default JudgmentService of ProcessSubstituted ServicePunitive DamagesJoint and Several LiabilityMotion for New TrialAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureNuisanceTrespass
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 1993

Texas Employers Insurance v. Underwriting Members of Lloyds

The case involves a dispute between a primary insurer, Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA), and several excess liability insurers (The Underwriting Members of Lloyds, et al.) over the reimbursement of defense costs incurred in an underlying lawsuit. TEIA, Monsanto's primary insurer, defended Monsanto in a toxic tort case, paying its $1 million indemnity limit and $4,057,245 in attorneys’ fees and costs. TEIA sought contribution and indemnity from the excess carriers, alleging they were responsible for defense costs and breached a duty of good faith. The Court granted summary judgment for the Defendants, holding that under Texas law and the unambiguous terms of the insurance policies, excess insurers are not obligated to participate in defense costs until the primary policy limits are exhausted. The Court also found TEIA's purported tender of its policy limits invalid and dismissed its claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Insurance DisputePrimary vs. Excess InsurerDefense CostsEquitable SubrogationSummary JudgmentPolicy InterpretationTexas LawGood Faith and Fair DealingExhaustion of Policy LimitsIndemnity Claim
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 4,559 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