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

Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed by former employees (Plaintiffs) against James W. Giddens, as SIPA Trustee for MF Global Inc., and Louis J. Freeh, as Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., MF Global Finance USA, Inc., and MF Global Holdings USA, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the federal WARN Act and the New York WARN Act due to employment termination without sufficient notice. The Court granted the SIPA Trustee's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding the "liquidating fiduciary" principle applicable to MFGI as its statutory purpose was liquidation. However, the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice and with leave to amend, as the factual record did not conclusively establish that the Chapter 11 Debtors were solely liquidating at the time of layoffs, and the complaint was otherwise deficient. Claims for vacation pay and unpaid wages were dismissed without prejudice to be handled in the claims allowance process.

WARN ActNew York WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffsPlant ClosingsBankruptcy ProceedingsCorporate LiquidationChapter 11 ReorganizationSIPA TrusteeLiquidating Fiduciary Principle
References
26
Case No. 2020-03-0245
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2020

Adkisson, Greg v. G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc.

This document is an Agreed Compensation Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice, concerning the case of Greg Adkisson (Employee) against G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc. (Employer). The parties reached this agreement during a telephonic mediation with Specialist Nina Harris on September 17, 2020. The Employee's claims for alleged occupational exposure illnesses and/or injuries, stemming from his work as a heavy equipment operator, are dismissed without prejudice. This allows him to re-file his workers' compensation claim in the future if he becomes partially or totally incapacitated due to an occupational illness, provided it is medically proven to be more than 50% related to his employment, as per T.C.A § 50-6-102(14) and T.C.A. § 50-6-303(a). The Court ordered G.UB.MK to pay a $150.00 filing fee and submit an SD-1 form.

Occupational IllnessHeavy EquipmentSettlement AgreementDismissalTelephonic MediationThird-Party ClaimFuture ClaimsWorkers' CompensationTennessee Law
References
0
Case No. G-01-CV-670
Regular Panel Decision

Kimmel Ex Rel. Estate of Kimmel v. TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY

This order addresses multiple lawsuits stemming from the tragic 1999 Texas A&M Bonfire collapse, which resulted in twelve deaths and twenty-seven injuries. Plaintiffs alleged that Texas A&M University and various officials violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by depriving victims of substantive due process through deliberate indifference to a state-created danger, and also pursued state law negligence claims. The Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the federal claims, ruling that the University was shielded by Eleventh Amendment immunity. It further found that the University Officials' actions, while possibly negligent, did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference required for a constitutional violation, dismissing these federal claims with prejudice. Finally, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law negligence claims, dismissing them without prejudice for resolution in state court.

Bonfire collapseTexas A&M University42 U.S.C. 1983Substantive Due ProcessState Created DangerEleventh Amendment ImmunityQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentFederal Law ClaimsState Law Claims
References
48
Case No. 11 CIV. 0377(CM)
Regular Panel Decision

Pippins v. KPMG LLP

This case concerns a decision granting Defendant KPMG LLP's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims with prejudice and their New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs, current and former Audit Associates at KPMG, alleged that KPMG violated overtime pay requirements by classifying them as exempt. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, determined that Audit Associates qualify as "learned professionals" under the FLSA exemption. This conclusion was based on their specialized academic training, customary CPA-eligibility, and the requirement for them to exercise discretion and judgment in performing audit procedures, despite some routine tasks and supervision. The court rejected Plaintiffs' arguments that their work was purely rote and found their duties essential to the accounting profession, thus exempting them from FLSA overtime requirements.

FLSANew York Labor LawLearned Professional ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionAudit AssociatesKPMGOvertime PaySummary JudgmentAccounting StandardsCPA Eligibility
References
39
Case No. 04-13-00558
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2014

Bruington Engineering, Ltd. v. Pedernal Energy, L.L.C.

This document contains two dissenting opinions from Justices Barnard and Martinez regarding the denial of Pedernal Energy, LLC’s motion for en banc reconsideration. Both justices argue that the majority panel decision misinterpreted Section 150.002(e) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which addresses the dismissal of complaints without a certificate of merit. They contend that the statute’s use of 'may' grants trial courts discretion to dismiss a case with or without prejudice, rather than mandating a dismissal with prejudice. The dissenting justices emphasize that the legislature intended to allow for discretion to prevent meritorious lawsuits from being dismissed on technical grounds, highlighting that the panel's interpretation renders other statutory provisions meaningless.

statutory interpretationjudicial discretiondismissal with prejudicedismissal without prejudicecertificate of meriten banc reconsiderationappellate procedureTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Codelegislative intentabuse of discretion
References
12
Case No. 2020-03-0244
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2020

Johnson, Robert E. v. G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc.

Robert E. Johnson, an employee, filed a claim against G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc., his employer, for alleged occupational exposure illnesses and/or injuries sustained as a commercial truck driver on the Kingston Fly Ash Recovery Project between 2012 and 2014. After telephonic mediation, the parties agreed to a dismissal without prejudice. The employee has a third-party tort suit pending for the same claims and is currently working full-time without restrictions. The Court approved the dismissal, allowing the employee to refile the workers' compensation claim in the future if he becomes incapacitated and provides medical proof that the incapacity is over 50% related to his work, pursuant to T.C.A § 50-6-102(14) and T.C.A. § 50-6-303(a). The filing fee was taxed to G.UB.MK.

Workers' Compensation ClaimsOccupational IllnessesDismissal Without PrejudiceTelephonic MediationTrucking IndustryDisputed CompensabilityThird-Party LitigationDOT Medical CertificateStatutory InterpretationAgreed Order
References
3
Case No. 2020-03-0243
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2020

Watkins, Michael v. G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc.

Michael Watkins, an employee, and G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc., the employer, reached an agreement to dismiss the employee's workers' compensation claim without prejudice. The claim involved alleged occupational exposure illnesses and injuries from Watkins' work as a commercial truck driver between 2011 and 2019. The parties disputed the compensability of these occupational exposures and illnesses. However, they stipulated that Watkins has a pending third-party tort suit related to these claims and is currently working full-time without restrictions. The dismissal allows Watkins to refile his claim in the future if he becomes incapacitated due to an occupational illness proven to be more than 50% related to his work for the employer. The Court taxed a filing fee of $150.00 to G.UB.MK, to be paid within five business days, and mandated the submission of an SD-2 form.

occupational illnessworkers' compensationdismissalwithout prejudicetruck drivervocationalthird-party claimT.C.A.stipulatedcompensability
References
0
Case No. G-01-CV-670
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2002

Breen v. TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY

This case addresses the aftermath of the 1999 Texas A&M Bonfire collapse, which resulted in numerous student deaths and injuries. Plaintiffs filed six lawsuits, alleging that the University and its officials violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process by acting with deliberate indifference to a state-created danger under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and also brought state law negligence claims. The Court granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the federal claims, finding the University immune under the Eleventh Amendment and the officials not liable due to a lack of "deliberate indifference." Subsequently, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice for resolution in state court.

Bonfire collapseTexas A&M University42 U.S.C. § 1983Eleventh Amendment immunityState-created dangerSubstantive due processDeliberate indifferenceSummary judgmentSupplemental jurisdictionState law claims
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Insurance Company, Inc.

The case, Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Insurance Company, revolves around an insurer's disclaimer of coverage due to late notice. Plaintiff Great Canal, a property owner, faced an underlying personal injury lawsuit after a worker's accident and notified its insurer, Seneca, four months later, believing a general contractor's policy would cover the incident. The Supreme Court denied Seneca's motion for summary judgment, finding a triable issue of fact regarding Great Canal's reasonable excuse for the delay. The appellate court affirmed this denial, with a concurring opinion by Catterson, J., strongly arguing for New York to reconsider its "no-prejudice" rule, which allows insurers to disclaim without proving actual harm from late notice. This opinion highlighted the perceived inequity of such forfeitures and suggested a shift towards a "prejudice" standard, while the dissent emphasized strict adherence to established state precedent.

Insurance LawNotice of ClaimTimely NoticeDisclaimer of CoveragePrejudice StandardNo-Prejudice ExceptionSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentContract LawAppellate Review
References
39
Case No. ADJ8118860
Regular
Jul 25, 2012

REBECCA BURSON BROWN vs. NEC ELECTRONICS, MITSUI SUMITOMO MARINE MANAGEMENT

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal seeking to overturn a prior administrative order denying their request for a third-party credit without prejudice. The defendant argued a due process violation, while the applicant suggested a settlement was anticipated. The Appeals Board denied removal because the prior denial was without prejudice, allowing the defendant to refile with proper documentation regarding net recovery and employer negligence. The Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant from the WCJ's procedural ruling.

Petition for RemovalThird Party CreditLabor Code section 3861Employer NegligenceDue ProcessWCJ OrderWithout PrejudiceNet RecoveryApplicant ObjectionWCAB Rule 10843
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 11,201 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