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

Complete Auto Sales, Inc. v. Life Insurance Co. of North America

Plaintiff Complete Auto Sales, Inc. (Complete) filed a motion to remand its case against defendant Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) back to state court. The case originated from Complete seeking contribution/indemnity from LINA, its insurer, for claims made against Complete by an injured employee. LINA had removed the case to federal court, arguing ERISA preemption. While some claims were partially remanded earlier, Complete now argues that LINA's insurance policy is exempt from ERISA jurisdiction, citing a prior ruling where a similar LINA policy was found to be state-governed. The court agreed, finding the current policy similar and not preempted by ERISA, thus lacking federal subject matter jurisdiction. Consequently, the motion to remand was granted, sending the case back to the 162nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.

ERISA PreemptionRemoval JurisdictionState Law ClaimsInsurance Policy ExemptionFederal Question JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to RemandTexas LawFifth CircuitDistrict Court
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eadie v. Complete Co., Inc.

Christopher A. Eadie was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 1997 while working for Complete Company, Inc. He subsequently filed workers' compensation claims in South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Complete and its insurer, Westfield Insurance Companies, moved for summary judgment in Tennessee, arguing Eadie was precluded by the election of remedies doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Eadie's active pursuit of his claim in South Carolina constituted a binding election of remedies, barring his Tennessee claim. The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel reversed this finding, but the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Eadie's actions in South Carolina were sufficient affirmative acts to constitute a binding election of remedies.

Workers' CompensationElection of RemediesInterstate ClaimSummary JudgmentJurisdictionTennessee Supreme CourtSouth Carolina Workers' CompensationAffirmative ActForum ShoppingDouble Recovery
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2003

Duane Reade, Inc. v. LOCAL 338, RETAIL, WHOLESALE, DEPT. STORE UNION, UCFW, AFL-CIO

Plaintiff Duane Reade, a large drug store chain, sought a preliminary injunction against Defendant Local 338, a union, to prevent trespassing and solicitation of its employees regarding a union affiliation election. The action, initially filed in New York state court for common law trespass, was removed to federal court by Local 338, which argued for preemption by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Presiding Judge Kaplan considered whether the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of 'complete preemption.' The court concluded that Duane Reade's state law claim fell under 'simple preemption' rather than 'complete preemption,' meaning federal question jurisdiction was not established. Consequently, the district court ruled that the case was improperly removed and ordered it remanded to the New York Supreme Court, County of New York.

Preliminary InjunctionTrespassUnion Affiliation ElectionLabor Management Relations ActLMRA PreemptionComplete PreemptionSimple PreemptionFederal Question JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionRemand
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TKO Fleet Enterprises, Inc. v. District 15, International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers

This case concerns a tort action filed by TKO Fleet Enterprises, Inc. against District 15, International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (IAM) for intentional interference with business relationships. The plaintiff initially filed in New York state court, but the defendant removed the action to federal court, arguing federal question jurisdiction based on complete preemption under federal labor law. The court examined the defendant's arguments regarding the complete preemption doctrine under Sections 7 and 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and general federal labor law, particularly concerning injunctive relief. Ultimately, the court found no basis for federal jurisdiction, determining that the state law claims were not completely preempted. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to New York state court was granted, returning jurisdiction to the state.

Intentional Interference with Business RelationsLabor DisputeFederal Question JurisdictionComplete Preemption DoctrineNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Motion to RemandState Law ClaimsFederal Labor LawInjunctive ReliefWell-Pleaded Complaint Rule
References
19
Case No. 01-06-00694-CV
Regular Panel Decision

LMC Complete Automotive, Inc. v. Burke

LMC Complete Automotive, Inc. appealed a $155,000 jury verdict in favor of its employee, Ronald Burke, in a nonsubscriber negligence case. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the evidence legally sufficient to support the jury's negligence and causation findings, and that the expert medical testimony was reliable. The court also upheld the exclusion of collateral source evidence regarding Burke's compensation for his injuries. Additionally, the court reviewed LMC's supersedeas bond, vacating a prior order and setting the bond at $74,868.02 based on LMC's determined net worth of $149,736.04. A separate appeal challenging the trial court's findings on the security issue was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Workplace InjuryNegligence ClaimNonsubscriber EmployerLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceCausation EvidenceExpert Medical TestimonyCollateral Source RuleSupersedeas BondNet Worth CalculationAppellate Review
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patino v. Complete Tire, Inc.

Reynaldo C. Patino, an employee of Complete Tire, Inc., was injured while working and subsequently terminated. He filed a negligence lawsuit against Complete Tire, Inc., alleging inadequate training and supervision, leading to his injury. The trial court granted a no-evidence summary judgment in favor of Complete Tire, Inc., and also imposed discovery sanctions against Patino for insufficient responses. On appeal, Patino challenged both rulings, arguing the summary judgment was improper and the sanctions were an abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding Patino failed to produce sufficient evidence to support his negligence claims and that the sanctions were justified.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsWorkers' Compensation NonsubscriberEmployer DutyWorkplace SafetyStandard of CareCausationAbuse of DiscretionTexas Civil Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Austin v. Paxton

The City of Austin sued the State of Texas (Attorney General Ken Paxton and Texas Workforce Commission) to enjoin Texas Local Government Code § 250.007(c). This state law allows landlords to refuse tenants using federal housing vouchers, which the City argues is preempted by federal law due to its ordinance prohibiting such discrimination. The State filed a motion to dismiss, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Court denied the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, affirming the City's standing and ruling the suit not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. However, the Court granted dismissal for the City's conflict preemption and Section 3617 express preemption claims, but denied dismissal for the Section 3615 express preemption claim, concluding the City adequately pleaded a disparate impact claim.

PreemptionFederal Housing Choice Voucher ProgramTexas Local Government CodeFair Housing ActEleventh AmendmentStandingMotion to DismissDisparate ImpactCity OrdinanceState Law
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Shell Oil Co.

This case addresses a Plaintiff's motion to remand their state-law claims, arising from alleged pesticide exposure, back to state court after the Defendant removed the action to federal court. The Defendant argued for federal question jurisdiction based on the preemption of state-law claims by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Court, however, determined that FIFRA preemption does not create federal question jurisdiction under the complete preemption doctrine because FIFRA lacks a private right of action and a specific grant of federal jurisdiction. The Court also dismissed the Defendant's alternative argument for diversity jurisdiction, noting that the Defendant is a citizen of the forum state, which prohibits removal. Consequently, the Plaintiff's motion to remand was granted due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal PreemptionFIFRARemoval JurisdictionComplete Preemption DoctrineFederal Question JurisdictionState Law ClaimsPesticide RegulationFifth Circuit LawDiversity JurisdictionRemand Motion
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Isufi v. Prometal Construction, Inc.

Plaintiffs, a class of workers, sued Pro-Metal Construction, Inc. and STV Construction, Inc. in state court for unpaid prevailing wages, benefits, and overtime related to a federally-funded project, asserting state common and statutory law claims. Defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing federal question jurisdiction due to the applicability of the federal Davis-Bacon Act and its preemption of state law claims. Plaintiffs moved to remand the case back to state court. The court examined the doctrines of federal question jurisdiction, the well-pleaded complaint rule, and the artful pleading doctrine, clarifying that preemption generally serves as a defense and not a basis for removal unless it constitutes 'complete preemption,' which the Davis-Bacon Act does not provide. The court determined that the plaintiffs' complaint did not raise a substantial federal issue and was not artfully pleaded to avoid federal jurisdiction. Consequently, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and the plaintiffs' motion to remand the action to state court was granted.

Wage DisputePrevailing WagesOvertimeFederal JurisdictionRemoval and RemandDavis-Bacon ActFederal PreemptionState Law ClaimsContract LawArtful Pleading
References
19
Case No. 04-0137
Regular Panel Decision

Drake v. Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings

The court issues a decision regarding its jurisdiction over state law claims, prompted by questions from the Second Circuit. It first confirms that complete diversity jurisdiction exists between the parties and deems the complaint amended to reflect this. Second, it elaborates on its decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Drake's state law claims, addressing factors like federal preemption, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, all of which weigh in favor of retaining jurisdiction. Finally, the court recertifies the preemption question for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), noting a consensus among parties and the potential to avoid protracted and costly litigation if the claims are ultimately found preempted.

Federal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionPreemption DoctrineInterlocutory AppealJudicial EconomyState Law ClaimsSecond Circuit ReviewDistrict Court PowersCase Management
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 1,162 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