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. 08-11-00092-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2012

Business Staffing, Inc., Transglobal Indemnity Limited, Inc., Harry Sewill, Richard Gable Chapman, Bart Bogus, BSI Insurance Services, Inc., Transglobal Mortgage, Inc., and LHR Enterprises, Inc. v. Jackson Hot Oil Service D/B/A Jackson Brothers Hot Oil Service and Cody Jackson

This case involves an appeal from a final judgment against Business Staffing, Inc. (BSI) and related entities (Appellants) in favor of Jackson Hot Oil Service and individuals (Appellees). Appellees sued for breach of contract, DTPA violations, breach of good faith, negligence, and fraud, stemming from Appellants' alleged failure to provide workers' compensation insurance. The jury found Appellants engaged in unconscionable and deceptive acts and committed fraud, particularly against Cody Jackson, who suffered severe burns in an on-the-job accident. The appellate court affirmed most of the jury's findings, including those on statute of limitations, DTPA violations, and fraud, but reformed the judgment to adjust the calculation of damages under the DTPA and reflect a remittitur for Jackson Brothers.

Workers' Compensation FraudDeceptive Trade Practices ActInsurance MisrepresentationCivil ConspiracyBreach of ContractAppellate Court DecisionTexas Civil LawStatute of Limitations DefenseExemplary DamagesActual Damages
References
53
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

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

Good Shepherd Medical Center - Linden, Inc. v. Bobby Twilley

Bobby Twilley, Director of Plant Operations for Good Shepherd Medical Center-Linden, Inc., suffered two workplace injuries: a fall from a ladder and a trip over cement. He sued Good Shepherd, alleging negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence. Good Shepherd moved to dismiss, contending that Twilley's claims were health care liability claims under the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA) and required an expert report. The trial court denied the motion, prompting Good Shepherd's interlocutory appeal. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Twilley's safety claims, while occurring on hospital premises, were entirely unrelated to health care and thus not subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement.

NegligencePremises LiabilityTexas Medical Liability ActExpert Report RequirementHealth Care Liability ClaimStatutory InterpretationWorkplace InjuryOccupational Safety and Health AdministrationInterlocutory AppealAppellate Court Decision
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goode v. City of Dallas

The case concerns the validity of a comprehensive zoning ordinance enacted by the City of Dallas, which prohibits the open storage of motor vehicles in residential districts unless incidental to the property's use as a residence. Landowner William P. Goode challenged the ordinance, arguing it was unconstitutionally vague and failed to adequately define an offense. The district court upheld the ordinance and granted an injunction requested by the City, which the appellate court affirmed. The court found the ordinance's language, particularly 'incidental to the use,' sufficiently clear and constitutional in its application to Goode's situation, where he stored thirteen cars and two motorcycles as a hobby. Furthermore, the court upheld the enabling state statute, article 1011h, against vagueness claims and ruled that the City was not prevented from seeking injunctive relief due to administrative remedies.

ZoningOrdinance ValidityMotor Vehicle StorageResidential ZoningDue ProcessConstitutional LawMunicipal LawTexas LawInjunctive ReliefAdministrative Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Judicial Dissolution of Good Co. General Store Cooperative

Petitioners Diane Mohney and Laura Ferris sought judicial dissolution of Good Company General Store Cooperative under Business Corporation Law § 1104-a, or alternatively, an accounting and judgment for their capital accounts. The court denied the petition for dissolution, finding petitioners lacked standing as their membership shares were automatically transferred upon termination of employment according to the cooperative's by-laws and Cooperative Corporations Law. However, the court granted the petitioners' alternative request, ordering Good Company to account for and pay the value of each petitioner’s capital account within 60 days, in compliance with its By-Laws. All other requests for judgment were denied without prejudice.

Worker CooperativeJudicial DissolutionBusiness Corporation Law § 1104-aCooperative Corporations LawMembership Share RedemptionInternal Capital AccountsBy-Laws DisputeCorporate StandingEmployment TerminationMember Rights
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Masterson v. Diocese of Northwest Texas

This Texas Supreme Court opinion addresses a church property dispute involving The Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd. A majority of the local congregation voted to withdraw from The Episcopal Church of the United States (TEC) and the Episcopal Diocese of Northwest Texas due to doctrinal differences, renaming itself the Anglican Church of the Good Shepherd. The Diocese and loyal faction (Episcopal Leaders) sued to gain control of the property. The Court held that Texas courts must apply 'neutral principles of law' to resolve church property disputes, rather than deferring to hierarchical church decisions on property ownership. The previous summary judgment in favor of the Episcopal Leaders, based on the deference methodology, was reversed. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the neutral principles approach, focusing on corporate bylaws, deeds, and state law regarding property and trusts.

Church Property DisputeNeutral Principles of LawDeference MethodologyFirst AmendmentFreedom of ReligionHierarchical ChurchTexas Supreme CourtCorporate GovernanceNon-Profit CorporationsTrust Law
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Herman v. Hospital Staffing Services, Inc.

The Secretary of Labor sought an injunction against Kenneth A. Welt (Bankruptcy Trustee for HSSI), Capital Factors, Inc., and Ron Lusk (President of HSSI) to prevent violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's 'hot goods' provision. HSSI failed to pay statutory wages to employees, leading to the shipment of 'hot goods' (patient reports and billing documents) in interstate commerce. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim (arguing documents were not 'goods' and employees were local), and requesting the court to abstain due to ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. The court denied all motions, affirming its jurisdiction under the police power exception to the automatic bankruptcy stay, confirming the documents as 'goods' under FLSA, and ruling the action was not duplicative. The court also held Ron Lusk personally liable as an 'employer' under FLSA.

Fair Labor Standards ActBankruptcy CodeAutomatic StayPolice Power ExceptionHot Goods DoctrineInterstate CommerceWage ViolationsMinimum WageOvertime CompensationCorporate Officer Liability
References
45
Case No. 04-19-00882-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2021

Villejo Enterprises, LLC D/B/A Good Guys Auto Group (Good Guys) v. C.R. Cox, Inc D/B/A AAMCO and Carl Cox

This case arises from an appeal by Villejo Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Good Guys Auto Group ("Good Guys") against C.R. Cox, Inc. d/b/a AAMCO and Carl Cox. Good Guys sued AAMCO and Cox for fraud, conversion, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Property Code, related to vehicle repairs and a subsequent sale. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of AAMCO and Cox. On appeal, the Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment on some claims, including fraud and certain DTPA claims, due to waived complaints and lack of evidence. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the unconscionability claim under DTPA and the Chapter 70 Texas Property Code claim, finding AAMCO and Cox failed to address the former in their motion and that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the "public sale" procedure for the mechanic's lien foreclosure.

auto repairmechanic's liensummary judgmentfraudconversionDTPATexas Property Codeunconscionabilityappellate reviewevidentiary ruling
References
52
Showing 1-10 of 2,615 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