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
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

Household Credit Services, Inc. v. Driscol

This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of Albert and Marianne Driscol against Allied Adjustment Bureau and Household Credit Services, Inc. for aggressive debt collection practices. The Driscols alleged various causes of action, including unreasonable debt collection, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. The appellate court reformed the initial $11.7 million judgment, upholding Marianne Driscol's recovery for invasion of privacy but reversing Albert Driscol's damages due to insufficient evidence of mental anguish. The court also reduced the exemplary damages awarded against both Household and Allied.

Debt Collection PracticesInvasion of PrivacyIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressAgency LiabilityExemplary DamagesActual DamagesMental AnguishLost WagesFactual SufficiencyLegal Sufficiency
References
60
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. 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
Case No. 2018-02-0004
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2019

Good, Willis T. v. Vickers Concrete Reinforcing, Inc.

The employee, Willis T. Good, sustained a work-related back injury while employed by Vickers Concrete Reinforcing, Inc. A settlement agreement was reached for permanent partial disability benefits, allowing the employee to petition for additional benefits after the initial compensation period. Upon the expiration of this period, the employee sought increased benefits, contending his new wages were less than 80% of his pre-injury average weekly wage, as per Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a)(2)(C). The employer's motion for summary judgment was denied by the trial court, which found a genuine issue of material fact regarding the employee's status as an hourly or salaried worker in his subsequent employment and the interpretation of 'wages'. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision and remanded the case, concurring that a factual dispute precluded summary judgment.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilitySummary JudgmentWage CalculationAppeals BoardEmployer LiabilityEmployee BenefitsSettlement AgreementStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Van Lines, LLC v. Marks

This case involves a dispute over alleged loss and damage to household goods belonging to Steven and Joanmarie Marks, which were transported by United Van Lines, LLC. The Marks hired Import-Export International, Inc. (IEI) and Sullivan Moving & Storage Company to handle the packing, storage, and interstate shipment from Mexico to Texas. United Van Lines, as the interstate carrier, sought a declaratory judgment, asserting no liability because the Marks could not prove the goods were in good condition upon tender to United and that the goods were improperly packed. The Marks counter-argued that Sullivan acted as United's agent throughout the process. The Court granted United's Motion for Summary Judgment, concluding that the Marks failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish that their goods were delivered to United in good condition, an essential element for a prima facie claim under the Carmack Amendment.

Carmack AmendmentInterstate Commerce ActSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentHousehold GoodsDamaged GoodsLost GoodsAgencyBill of LadingPreponderance of Evidence
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,704 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