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. 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. 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

National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Dominguez

This workers' compensation case addresses an allegation by Justo L. Dominguez, Jr. that National Union Fire Insurance Company, his compensation carrier, breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. Dominguez initially settled a workers' compensation claim with National Union for $28,000, then filed a separate suit for breach of good faith. A jury awarded Dominguez $322,988.36, which the court of appeals partially affirmed and partially reversed. Citing Lyons v. Millers Casualty Insurance Company, the Texas Supreme Court held there was no evidence that National Union breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing, reversing the court of appeals' judgment and rendering judgment that Dominguez take nothing.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceGood Faith and Fair DealingBreach of DutyInsurance ClaimsAppellate ReviewNo Evidence StandardReversal of JudgmentCompensatory DamagesExemplary DamagesMental Anguish
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

Eubanks v. GAB Business Services, Inc.

William Ray Eubanks appealed the granting of summary judgment in favor of GAB Business Services, Inc. Eubanks was injured on the job in 1987 while working for the City of Texarkana, and in 1989 experienced further physical problems. GAB, employed by the Texas Municipal Intergovernmental Risk Pool to adjust workers' compensation claims for the City, recommended denying Eubanks's 1989 claim. Eubanks sued GAB for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, arguing GAB owed him this duty despite not being privy to his contract with the City or the Pool. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding GAB did not owe Eubanks such a duty. The appellate court affirmed, holding that in Texas, the duty of good faith and fair dealing arises only from a special relationship created by a contract between an insurer and an insured, which was absent between Eubanks and GAB.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingInsurance AdjusterAppellate LawContractual PrivitySpecial RelationshipEmployer ImmunityTexas LawGovernmental Risk Pool
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanchez v. New York Underwriters Insurance Co.

Raul Sanchez, an injured employee, appealed the trial court's summary judgment granted to New York Underwriters Insurance Company (NYUIC) and David Sampson. Sanchez had previously won a worker's compensation claim but NYUIC discontinued disability payments during subsequent litigation, leading to Sanchez's bad faith claim. The trial court initially granted summary judgment, ruling no duty of good faith existed post-litigation. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that worker's compensation carriers indeed have a duty of good faith and fair dealing that extends through post-litigation proceedings, citing Aranda v. Insurance Co. of North America.

worker's compensationbad faithduty of good faith and fair dealingsummary judgmentpost-litigationinsurance carrierTexas lawappellate reviewreversalremand
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Savings & Loan Insurance v. Atkinson-Smith University Park Joint Venture

This case addresses whether the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) owes a duty of good faith and fair dealing to borrowers of a failed thrift institution. The FSLIC sought summary judgment to recover on several promissory notes executed by Atkinson-Smith University Park Joint Venture, Jack D. Atkinson, Meadowcreek Village Apartments, Ltd., Atkinson Financial Corporation, and Vernon, James and Paul Smith Company. Defendants argued that FSLIC breached an implied duty of good faith by mishandling a foreclosure sale. However, the court, applying Texas law, found no "special relationship" between the FSLIC and the borrowers that would impose such a duty. Consequently, the court granted FSLIC’s motion for summary judgment.

Promissory NotesSummary JudgmentFSLICGood Faith and Fair DealingForeclosure LawCommercial LendingD'Oench, Duhme DoctrineHolder in Due CourseTexas Contract LawImplied Covenant
References
27
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

Hopkins v. Highlands Insurance Co.

Charles Milton Hopkins (Appellant) was fired by Magnolia Coca-Cola Bottling Company after Highlands Insurance Co. and Goodman-Watson Insurance Agency, Inc. (Appellees) excluded him from an insurance policy due to his driving record. Hopkins sued, alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, tortious interference with a contractual relationship, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Appellees. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment regarding the Deceptive Trade Practices Act for both Appellees and the breach of duty claim against Watson Agency. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment against Highlands Insurance Co. for tortious interference and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, finding issues of material fact regarding Highlands' justification for exclusion based on its own guidelines and DOT regulations.

Deceptive Trade PracticesTortious InterferenceContractual RelationshipBreach of Good FaithFair DealingSummary JudgmentInsurance CoverageDriving RecordExclusion from PolicyAffirmative Defense
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 5,044 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