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
Feb 05, 1999

Dunbar Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Carrier Corp.

Sandra Dunbar, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), petitioned for a Section 10(j) injunction against Carrier to prevent the relocation of its TR-1 facility from Syracuse, New York, to Huntersville, North Carolina. The NLRB alleged that Carrier failed to bargain in good faith with Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local No. 527 (union) over the relocation decision, insisting to impasse on a non-mandatory subject that would alter the bargaining unit's scope. The court found reasonable cause to believe Carrier committed unfair labor practices by failing to bargain in good faith regarding the mandatory subject of relocation. The injunction was granted in part, ordering Carrier to bargain in good faith with the union on the relocation decision and its effects, and enjoining further relocation actions without a good-faith impasse or agreement. A subsequent motion by Carrier for reconsideration, modification, and a limited stay pending appeal was denied.

Labor RelationsUnfair Labor PracticeCollective BargainingSection 10(j) InjunctionRelocation of WorkBargaining ImpasseMandatory Bargaining SubjectPermissive Bargaining SubjectWaiver of RightsStatus Quo Ante
References
29
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

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

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. ADJ991157 (GRO 0032393)
Regular
Jun 07, 2010

RANDY SHOOK (Deceased) GLENDA STAFFORD vs. ARMORED TRANSPORT, ESIS SOUTHFIELD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration in the case of Randy Shook's suicide. Applicant argued the employer's investigation was conducted in bad faith, thus invalidating the "good faith personnel action" defense. However, the Board found the investigation met the objective reasonableness standard and was undertaken in subjective good faith. The Board distinguished this case from those involving criminal false imprisonment and affirmed its authority to reject a WCJ's findings when substantial evidence supports its own. Therefore, compensation remains barred under Labor Code section 3208.3(h).

Labor Code section 3208.3(h)good faith personnel actionindustrial suicidepsychiatric injurydeceit and coercionpreliminary investigationcriminal misconductsubjective good faithobjective reasonablenesscriminal false imprisonment
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 4,333 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