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

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
Jan 14, 2010

Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Xerces Society (plaintiffs) sued the United States Environmental Protection Agency (defendant) and intervenor Bayer CropScience, challenging the EPA's registration of the insecticide spirotetramat. Plaintiffs alleged procedural and substantive deficiencies, primarily that the EPA failed to publish notice of applications, invite public comment, and publish registration decisions as required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The court found the EPA had indeed committed serious procedural errors. Despite arguments from the EPA and Bayer against vacatur, the court decided to vacate the EPA's approvals of spirotetramat registrations and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with FIFRA and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Environmental LawInsecticide RegulationFIFRAAPAAdministrative LawNotice and CommentAgency ActionVacaturRemandSpirotetramat
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox v. Cheminova, Inc.

Commercial fishermen (Plaintiffs Fox, Makowsky, Crismale) sued Cheminova (pesticide manufacturer) over a 1999 lobster die-off in Long Island Sound, alleging pesticides sprayed for West Nile Virus were the cause. The lawsuit evolved into a 'failure to warn' claim, asserting Cheminova's Fyfanon pesticide label lacked adequate warnings for aquatic environments. Cheminova moved for summary judgment, citing FIFRA preemption, government emergency doctrine immunity, and lack of material facts for state law claims. The court denied Cheminova's motion, concluding that genuine issues of material fact regarding FIFRA compliance, state law applicability (negligence, strict liability, public nuisance), and the proximate cause of the lobster die-off necessitated a jury trial. Decisions on expert testimony admissibility were deferred, and motions to strike expert affidavits were denied without prejudice.

Pesticide LiabilityFailure to WarnFIFRA PreemptionSummary Judgment MotionExpert Testimony AdmissibilityDaubert ChallengeCausation DisputeEnvironmental TortProduct LiabilityLong Island Sound
References
27
Case No. No. 96 Civ. 8835(WCC)
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1998

Ell v. S.E.T. Landscape Design, Inc.

Plaintiffs Bobbie J. Ell and Thomas McVeigh filed a state court action in Orange County, New York, alleging injuries from a negligently sprayed fertilizer by employees of S.E.T. Landscape Design, Inc., including Glenn Nixon. Nixon later impleaded LESCO, Inc., the fertilizer manufacturer. Plaintiffs then amended their complaint to directly sue LESCO. LESCO removed the action to federal court, claiming federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, asserting complete preemption by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Defendant Nixon, joined by plaintiffs and S.E.T., moved for remand. The court granted the motion, finding that FIFRA does not completely preempt state law and therefore, federal question jurisdiction was lacking. Additionally, the court noted that removal was improper due to the lack of unanimous consent from all defendants.

Pesticide PreemptionFederal Question JurisdictionRemandWell-Pleaded Complaint RuleComplete PreemptionFIFRAState Law ClaimsUnanimous Consent RuleRemoval JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
34
Case No. M2001-00174-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2001

Terminix International Co. v. Department of Labor

This case concerns an appeal regarding the jurisdictional authority of the Tennessee Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (TOSHA), to conduct safety inspections and enforce regulations for pesticide applicators. Appellants Terminix International Company, L.P. and TruGreen, Inc., L.P., challenged TOSHA's jurisdiction, asserting preemption by federal laws like FIFRA and FOSH. The Chancery Court for Davidson County affirmed TOSHA's authority, noting that state agriculture regulations focus on pesticide labeling and applicator licensing, not employee workplace safety. The Tennessee Court of Appeals upheld this decision, concluding that Congress did not intend to fully preempt state regulation of pesticide use in the workplace, thus affirming TOSHA's jurisdiction and obligation to ensure worker health and safety from pesticide-related risks.

Pesticide RegulationOccupational Safety and HealthFederal PreemptionState JurisdictionPersonal Protective Equipment (PPE)TOSHA (Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Act)FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act)Workplace Safety InspectionsAdministrative LawJudicial Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Terminix International Co. v. Tennessee Department of Labor

This case involves an appeal by Terminix International Company, L.P. and TruGreen, Inc., L.P. challenging the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (TOSHA) to conduct safety inspections and enforce regulations concerning pesticide applicators. The appellants argued that federal laws, specifically the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act (FOSH), preempted TOSHA's authority. Both the Chancery Court of Davidson County and this appellate court affirmed the decision that TOSHA has jurisdiction. The Court concluded that Congress did not intend to fully occupy the field of pesticide regulation, particularly regarding their use in the workplace, and that states are permitted to regulate pesticide use. Therefore, TOSHA retains its obligation and authority to protect the health and safety of workers from risks associated with pesticide use in the workplace.

Pesticide SafetyWorkplace SafetyFederal PreemptionState Regulatory AuthorityOccupational HealthPersonal Protective EquipmentAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewFIFRAFOSH Act
References
18
Showing 1-6 of 6 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