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

Rhodes v. Bedford County, Tenn.

This case involves an action brought by employees of the Bedford County Ambulance Service against Bedford County, Tennessee, alleging violations of Sections 7 and 8 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically regarding minimum wage and overtime provisions. The dispute arose following the Supreme Court's Garcia decision, which made FLSA applicable to state and municipal employees, and subsequent Congressional amendments aimed at easing the transition for local governments. Plaintiffs argued that the county failed to pay proper minimum wage and overtime from April 15, 1986, to June 30, 1986, and that the subsequent change from salaried to hourly pay on July 1, 1986, constituted a scheme to avoid overtime requirements by artificially deflating the regular rate. The court found that the county’s failure to provide proper overtime payments was a continuous violation, thus plaintiffs’ action was not barred by the statute of limitations. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the issue of liability under Section 7 of the FLSA, finding both periods of violation. Liquidated damages were awarded for the initial period, but a question of material fact remained for the later period. The defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime CompensationMinimum Wage LawPublic Agency EmploymentMunicipal Government LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionsContinuing Violation DoctrineStatute of Limitations FLSAWage and Hour DisputeAntidiscrimination in Employment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Voll

The debtors, Patrick L. Voll and Linda P. Voll, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ("Tax Department") willfully violated the automatic stay by continuing to garnish Mrs. Voll's wages post-petition, despite receiving notice of the bankruptcy filing. The garnishment ceased, and the improperly deducted funds were returned after the Debtors filed a motion for sanctions. The court found that the Tax Department willfully violated the automatic stay. However, the court denied the Debtors' claim for emotional distress damages, finding they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of significant emotional harm distinct from the general stressors of bankruptcy and other life events. The court awarded the Debtors $13,625.00 in attorneys' fees as actual damages for the willful violation of the stay.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic Stay ViolationWage GarnishmentSanctions MotionAttorneys' Fees AwardChapter 13 BankruptcyTaxation and FinanceActual DamagesEmotional Distress ClaimsWillful Violation
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spicer v. Beaman Bottling Co.

This case addresses the applicability of the "continuing violation doctrine" to a sexual harassment claim filed under the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Plaintiff Judy G. Spicer alleged sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge by her supervisor, Don Hollingshead, and employer, Beaman Bottling Company. The Supreme Court adopted the continuing violation doctrine, allowing a plaintiff to challenge a series of discriminatory acts if one falls within the one-year statute of limitations. However, the Court found that all acts of sexual harassment against Spicer occurred more than one year before she filed suit, and the alleged retaliatory actions did not constitute a continuing violation or discrimination based on gender. Therefore, the plaintiff's action was deemed time-barred, and the Court of Appeals' judgment affirming dismissal was affirmed.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationContinuing Violation DoctrineStatute of LimitationsTennessee Human Rights ActRetaliatory DischargeHostile Work EnvironmentSupervisory LiabilityWorkplace DiscriminationAppellate Review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2014

In re Haemmerle

The debtor, Thomas Haemmerle, moved to hold Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in civil contempt for violating his Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge injunction. Haemmerle's personal liability on a mortgage loan was discharged in 2006, despite Wells Fargo not being initially scheduled as a creditor. After the loan defaulted in 2011, Wells Fargo pursued collection efforts. Despite being notified of the discharge in 2013, Wells Fargo continued to make numerous phone calls and send letters asserting Haemmerle's personal liability. The court ruled that Haemmerle's personal liability was discharged by operation of law and that Wells Fargo knowingly and willfully violated the discharge injunction, awarding attorneys' fees and $69,500 in punitive damages.

Bankruptcy LawDischarge InjunctionCivil ContemptCreditor NotificationNo-Asset BankruptcyPersonal LiabilityIn Rem RightsPunitive DamagesAttorneys' FeesEmotional Distress Claims
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Xue Ming Wang v. Abumi Sushi Inc.

Plaintiff Xue Ming Wang sued Abumi Sushi Inc. and Qing Zhong Li for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law (NYLL), and New York General Business Law § 349 violations, stemming from his employment as a delivery worker. The core legal dispute centered on whether the defendants, who acquired the restaurant's assets in June 2015, were liable for violations predating the sale under successor liability doctrines. The Court considered both traditional common-law and federal common-law 'substantial continuity' tests. It concluded that the traditional test did not apply due to lack of ownership continuity, and under the 'substantial continuity' test, the plaintiff failed to prove the defendants had notice of the alleged pre-sale violations. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, denied the plaintiff's motion, and dismissed claims related to pre-June 2, 2015 conduct against the appearing defendants.

Successorship LiabilityFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawGeneral Business Law § 349Wage and Hour ViolationsAsset SaleConstructive NoticeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawLabor Dispute
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 1999

Ruiz v. Johnson

This Memorandum Opinion addresses motions to terminate the court's jurisdiction over an ongoing civil action concerning conditions in Texas prisons, Ruiz v. Estelle, initiated in 1972. The court rules that the termination provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) are unconstitutional, violating the separation of powers and due process clauses, and thus cannot be applied retroactively to the 1992 Final Judgment. Alternatively, the court finds systemic constitutional violations in three key areas: administrative segregation, inmate safety, and excessive force. Conditions in administrative segregation units (Levels II and III) are found to inflict cruel and unusual psychological suffering and inappropriately house mentally ill inmates. Prison officials are deemed deliberately indifferent to widespread inmate-on-inmate violence, sexual assault, and extortion, failing to provide reasonable protection. A pervasive culture of malicious and sadistic excessive force by correctional officers is also found unconstitutional. However, while medical and psychiatric care are deemed inadequate and often negligent, they do not meet the "deliberate indifference" standard required for an Eighth Amendment violation under current law. The court concludes that despite significant policy improvements, the Texas prison system's practices continue to violate constitutional standards in critical areas, ensuring continued judicial oversight.

Prison ConditionsEighth AmendmentCruel and Unusual PunishmentSeparation of PowersDue ProcessPrison Litigation Reform ActInmate SafetyExcessive ForceAdministrative SegregationMental Health Care
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Petrosky v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

Plaintiff Sherry Petrosky sued the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and individual defendants for sex and disability discrimination under Title VII, ADA, and New York State Human Rights Law. She alleged continuous sexual harassment and discrimination from 1981 to 1994, including unwelcome sexual advances, offensive comments, and physical humiliation. Additionally, she claimed discrimination due to her diabetes, including ignored requests for accommodation and abusive comments. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims, arguing they were time-barred and that plaintiff did not satisfy the continuing violation exception. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiff adequately pleaded a continuing violation and that her federal claims were not time-barred because a discriminatory event occurred on October 20, 1994, within the 180-day filing period. The court also retained jurisdiction over state law claims.

Workplace discriminationSex discriminationDisability discriminationSexual harassmentHostile work environmentStatute of limitationsContinuing violation doctrineMotion to dismissFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)EEOC
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Linda FF.

This case involves an appeal from Family Court orders regarding a respondent's violation of supervision orders concerning her two children, Linda FF. and Charles FF. The respondent had previously consented to neglect findings for both children, who were placed in petitioner's custody, and was placed under supervision with conditions including family counseling, parenting education, and anger management. Petitioner initiated violation proceedings alleging the respondent failed to comply with these terms by missing classes and exhibiting a negative attitude, and Family Court found a willful violation, revoking the supervision orders and imposing a suspended 45-day jail term. On appeal, the respondent argued that Family Ct Act § 1072, used for enforcement, only applies to supervision orders issued under § 1054, not her orders which were likely under § 1057, but the appellate court interpreted this as legislative oversight and allowed enforcement under § 1072. The court affirmed the Family Court's determination, finding ample evidence of willful and unjustifiable violation of the supervision order terms.

Family LawChild NeglectSupervision OrderViolation ProceedingFamily Court Act § 1072Legislative OversightParenting ClassesAnger ManagementCustodyWillful Violation
References
3
Case No. 03-05-00781-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2009

Alegria Olivarez v. University of Texas at Austin

Alegria Olivarez sued her former employer, the University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin), alleging discrimination based on national origin and retaliation. UT-Austin filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting Olivarez's suit was barred because she did not file an administrative complaint with the Texas Commission on Human Rights within the 180-day statute of limitations. The trial court granted the plea, and Olivarez appealed. She contended that the limitations period began upon receipt of her termination letter and that her TCHR filing was timely under the doctrine of continuing violation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, concluding that the only alleged discriminatory act within the 180-day period (a reprimand for a cluttered desk) was not an actionable adverse employment action, and the continuing violation doctrine did not apply. The court also clarified that termination does not qualify as a predicate act for a hostile work environment claim.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationStatute of LimitationsPlea to the JurisdictionContinuing Violation DoctrineHostile Work EnvironmentAdministrative ComplaintTexas Labor CodeAppellate Review
References
28
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02582
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2021

Matter of Young v. Acranom Masonary Inc.

Claimant Timothy Young established a workers' compensation claim for a back injury and received indemnity benefits, despite his treating physician continuously diagnosing a total temporary disability. Young returned to work for a different employer on April 1, 2019, but failed to disclose this information to any party or the Workers' Compensation Board, continuing to cash compensation checks. The employer's carrier subsequently raised a fraud issue under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, supported by video surveillance showing Young engaged in physical activity. The Workers' Compensation Board found that Young violated § 114-a through misrepresentation and imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties, including a lifetime bar of indemnity benefits. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the finding of a § 114-a violation but reversed the discretionary penalty of permanent disqualification from future wage replacement benefits, deeming it disproportionate to the offense given mitigating circumstances.

Workers' Compensation FraudDisability BenefitsMisrepresentationMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyIndemnity BenefitsReturn to WorkVideo SurveillanceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 8,964 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