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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Paramount Staffing, Inc.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Ernestine Tolar and other African American temporary workers, alleging race discrimination by Paramount Staffing, Inc. in violation of Title VII. The EEOC claimed Paramount Staffing, a staffing agency, systematically chose Hispanic workers over African American applicants for positions at a Technicolor warehouse. Paramount Staffing moved for summary judgment, asserting the EEOC failed to conciliate in good faith by not disclosing class member identities and misrepresenting the class size during settlement negotiations. The Court denied the defendant's motion, finding that the EEOC's conciliation efforts were adequate, it sufficiently outlined the class, and its estimated class size was subject to change as litigation progressed.

Title VIIRace DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationSummary Judgment MotionEEOC ConciliationGood FaithClass ActionTemporary StaffingRacial BiasDamages Claims
References
11
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

Keyes Helium Company v. Regency Gas Services, L.P.

Keyes Helium Company sued Regency Gas Services for breach of contract, alleging Regency failed to act in good faith by shutting down its Lakin Plant, which supplied crude helium to Keyes. Keyes also claimed unreasonable variation and failure to use best efforts under their crude helium supply contract. The jury found in favor of Regency, concluding it did not breach the contract. The trial court also directed verdicts for Regency on the unreasonable variation and best efforts claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the jury instruction on good faith, upholding the directed verdict on the unreasonable variation claim, and affirming the directed verdict on the best efforts claim, noting the obligation was not on Regency under this specific contract.

Uniform Commercial CodeOutput contractRequirements contractGood faith obligationBreach of contractDirected verdictJury instructionsCommercial standardsLegitimate business reasonUnreasonable variation
References
19
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

Eaton v. Chahal

This consolidated decision by Justice William H. Keniry addresses common discovery issues across six negligence actions in Rensselaer County Supreme Court. The primary focus is the requirement for a "good faith" effort to resolve discovery disputes, as mandated by section 202.7 of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR). The court emphasizes that a "good faith" effort necessitates significant contact and negotiation between counsel. Due to a complete failure to comply with this rule, the motions and cross-motions in five cases (Eaton, Frament, Lindeman, Madsen, and Malave) are denied. In the Oathout case, the defendants' motion is conditionally granted, pending plaintiff's compliance with discovery demands. The court also outlines its position on substantive discovery issues like medical reports, collateral source information, statutory violations, age/date of birth, photographs, and authorizations for workers' compensation and no-fault insurance files.

Discovery disputesBill of particularsGood faith requirementCPLR Article 31Medical reportsCollateral source informationStatutory violationsWorkers' compensation filesNo-fault insurance filesJudicial discretion
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re D. M.

D.M., a thirteen-year-old boy with ADHD, set fire to his school, causing over $100,000 in damages. The trial court ordered D.M.'s parents to pay $25,000 in restitution as part of a 12-month in-home probation. The parents appealed, arguing insufficient evidence to support the restitution amount and that the governing statutes violate the "open courts" provision of the Texas Constitution and due process by improperly assigning the burden of proof for "good faith efforts" to prevent delinquent behavior. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the family code places the burden on parents to prove good faith efforts as a defense to liability, which does not violate due process. It also found no "open courts" violation as no common law cause of action was abridged. The court further determined there was sufficient evidence to support the restitution order, considering the parents' lack of evidence for discouraging fire experimentation, their blaming of the school, and the rehabilitative effect on D.M.

Juvenile justiceParental liabilityRestitutionDelinquent conductTexas Family CodeDue processOpen courtsConstitutional lawCriminal mischiefProbation
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

GOOD SHEPHERD MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. State

Good Shepherd Medical Center challenged the constitutionality of two Texas statutes (2003 amendments) that mandated "any willing provider" status for general hospitals in specific geographic areas for TRS-Care and TRS-ActiveCare programs. Good Shepherd, which previously held a de facto sole-provider status in Longview, Gregg County, argued these amendments were unconstitutional local or special laws. The district court dismissed Good Shepherd's claims for lack of standing and also ruled on the merits, declaring the statutes constitutional. On appeal, the higher court affirmed the district court's finding that Good Shepherd lacked standing to bring its claims. Consequently, it vacated the district court's decision on the merits, stating that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate those issues. Good Shepherd's suit was ultimately dismissed with prejudice, and the intervenors' claims were also dismissed.

Standing DoctrineSubject Matter JurisdictionDeclaratory Judgment ActConstitutional LawLocal & Special LawsTexas Insurance CodeHealthcare Provider Networks"Any Willing Provider" StatutesTeacher Retirement SystemAppellate Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2005

Plaza Restoration, Inc. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

The plaintiff insured brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment, alleging that the defendant insurer breached its covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This alleged breach related to a personal injury action previously commenced against the plaintiff by a construction worker. The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which had denied its motion to dismiss the complaint or for summary judgment, arguing the action was premature. The appellate court rejected the defendant's contention, affirming that a declaratory judgment action against an insurer is permissible even before a judgment in the underlying action. The order of the Supreme Court was affirmed, with costs.

Declaratory JudgmentBreach of CovenantGood Faith and Fair DealingInsurance LawPersonal InjuryConstruction Site InjuryRipeness DoctrineMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,604 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