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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2003

Cuevas v. Americorps

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found a claimant's workers' compensation claim was not preempted by federal law. The claimant, a participant in the Americorps program through the Red Hook Public Safety Corps, sustained back and neck injuries while performing community gardening. The Workers' Compensation Board determined she was a general employee of the Fund for the City of New York, Inc. (FCNY) and a special employee of Americorps. FCNY and its carriers appealed, arguing that 42 USC § 12511 explicitly preempts state law by stating that Americorps participants are not employees for the purposes of that subchapter. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the federal statute's definition of 'participant' as 'not an employee' was limited to the purposes of the federal subchapter and did not dictate employee status for state workers' compensation benefits. The court further noted that 42 USC § 12594 (b) contemplates states treating participants as employees for workers' compensation purposes, reinforcing the lack of preemptive intent.

Federal preemptionAmericorps programEmployment status determinationStatutory interpretationFund for the City of New YorkCommunity service injuryWorkers' Compensation Board appealAppellate review42 USC 1251142 USC 12594
References
4
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

Classen v. Irving Healthcare System

Carol Classen sued her former employer, Irving Healthcare System, alleging retaliatory discharge for pursuing workers’ compensation benefits, a claim prohibited by Texas law. Irving Healthcare System, a municipal hospital authority and governmental entity, asserted immunity from suit. The trial court and court of appeals sided with Irving Healthcare, concluding that governmental immunity had not been waived for such claims under article 8307c. However, citing a recent precedent set in *City of La Porte v. Barfield*, the Supreme Court of Texas determined that governmental immunity had been partially waived in wrongful discharge cases. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with *Barfield*.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsGovernmental ImmunityWaiver of ImmunityMunicipal Hospital AuthoritySummary JudgmentRemandTexas LawEmployer-Employee DisputeLabor Code
References
2
Case No. 05-17-00423-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2018

Linda Dickens and Dickens Law, LLC v. Jason C. Webster, P.C. D/B/A the Webster Law Firm and Jason Webster

This case concerns a dispute between two lawyers, Linda Dickens and Jason C. Webster, over an alleged contingency fee sharing agreement in a wrongful death case. Webster sought a declaration that the agreement was unenforceable under Texas law, while Dickens counterclaimed for tortious interference and breach of contract, arguing Kansas law should apply. The trial court dismissed Dickens’s tortious interference claim under the TCPA and granted summary judgment to Webster. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of Dickens's tortious interference claim, finding sufficient evidence, but affirmed that Texas law applies and the fee sharing agreement is unenforceable due to a lack of written client consent as required by Texas Disciplinary Rules. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the tortious interference claim.

Fee Sharing AgreementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens Participation ActCommercial Speech ExemptionChoice of LawProfessional Conduct RulesContingency FeesLegal EthicsSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
40
Case No. 00-CV-1228
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2002

Kepner v. FEDERAL NAT. MORTG. ASS'N

Plaintiffs Edward and Penelope Kepner sued Federal National Mortgage Association and other defendants for injuries Edward sustained after falling through an unsecured floor opening while re-keying a lock at a foreclosed property. Plaintiffs alleged common-law negligence and violations of various New York Labor Law sections. The court dismissed all Labor Law claims, reasoning that re-keying a lock did not constitute construction or repair work covered by the statutes, and the property was not a construction site. However, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment on the negligence claim, finding numerous unresolved factual disputes regarding duty of care, breach, causation, and comparative negligence. Consequently, the negligence claim will proceed to trial.

NegligenceLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentForeclosureLocksmith InjuryDuty of CareProximate CauseStatutory InterpretationFactual Dispute
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Choe v. Fordham University School of Law

Jerry Choe sued Fordham University School of Law and Fordham International Law Journal (ILJ) alleging mutilation of his published Comment. He claimed violations of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act and federal common law "moral rights," along with state claims like libel and breach of contract. Choe contended that the ILJ published a "garbled and distorted" version of his work, containing numerous substantive and typographical errors, which made him appear sloppy. The court examined whether the published Comment substantially departed from the original to the extent that Choe could not be considered its author, referencing cases like Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Co. The court found that despite the alleged errors, Choe himself admitted readers could "uncover the essential meaning" of his Comment, distinguishing it from cases of radical alteration. The court also dismissed the federal common law "moral rights" claim, stating that such a claim is not recognized in this Circuit. Consequently, defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint, including pendent state claims, was dismissed due to lack of federal jurisdiction.

Copyright LawLanham ActMoral RightsAuthor's RightsEditorial ControlSummary JudgmentAcademic PublicationLiterary WorksMutilation of WorkFederal Jurisdiction
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pechinski v. Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

Plaintiffs Matthew J. Pechinski and Brooke Ritvo Pechinski sued Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association, alleging that a $2,479 assignment fee violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and constituted a hidden finance charge or an undisclosed prepayment penalty. They also brought state law claims for common law equity, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and deceptive practices under New York General Business Law § 349. The dispute arose when Astoria Federal, after acquiring the original lender, charged the fee when the plaintiffs sought to refinance their mortgage and assign it to a new lender. The court, presided over by District Judge Stein, granted Astoria Federal's motion to dismiss the TILA claims, ruling that the assignment fee was neither part of the finance charge nor a prepayment penalty under TILA and Regulation Z, as it was imposed years after the loan origination and was not solely due to prepayment. The court also declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Truth in Lending ActTILA ViolationMortgage Assignment FeePrepayment PenaltyFinance Charge DisclosureRegulation ZFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Supplemental JurisdictionMotion to DismissConsumer Credit Protection
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Insurance v. Elf Aquitaine, Inc.

Federal Insurance Company sued PCS Phosphate Co. and other defendants for $609,898 in retrospective premiums under Workers Compensation and General Liability Policies. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment: Federal sought judgment on the total premiums owed, while PCS moved to dismiss claims related to the Workers Compensation Policy, arguing Federal's payments were improper under North Carolina law due to not being the insurer at the time of last exposure. The court, Colleen McMahon, District Judge, denied both motions. Federal's motion was denied because it failed to adequately explain its premium calculations and the connection between various exhibits. PCS's motion was denied as it failed to demonstrate that North Carolina law should apply to the Workers Compensation Policy and did not definitively prove Federal was not the insurer at the time of last exposure, leaving material facts in dispute. The court also noted PCS's prior involvement in settlements with Federal.

Summary JudgmentInsurance PolicyRetrospective PremiumsWorkers CompensationGeneral LiabilityChoice of LawConflict of LawsNorth Carolina LawNew York LawInsurer Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ciffa v. Jewish Federation Housing Development Fund Co.

On September 1, 1978, Joseph P. Ciffa was seriously injured when a scaffold plank broke at a jobsite owned by Jewish Federation Housing Development Fund Company, Inc., while he was employed by John W. Cowper Co., Inc. Ciffa and his wife sued Jewish Federation and H. J. Mye Lumber Corporation for negligence and Labor Law violations. Third-party complaints for contribution and indemnification were filed against Cowper. After a settlement, the action was converted to a declaratory judgment to determine insurance obligations between Cowper's two carriers, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company and Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company (Kemper), and between Aetna and Jewish Federation. The court found Cowper actively negligent and Jewish Federation vicariously liable, entitling Jewish Federation to common-law indemnification from Cowper. Furthermore, a broad contractual indemnification clause between Jewish Federation and Cowper was deemed controlling. Consequently, the court declared Aetna, Cowper's comprehensive general liability carrier, solely responsible for compensating Cowper for recoveries against Jewish Federation and for Jewish Federation's attorneys' fees and expenses.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnification ClauseCommon Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationLabor LawVicarious LiabilityActive NegligenceInsurance Coverage DisputeComprehensive General Liability PolicyWorkers' Compensation Policy
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 18,547 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