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. MDL-1206
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1999

In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation

This order approves eight settlement agreements in the multidistrict litigation, In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1206. The litigation involves claims by royalty and working interest owners against major oil companies for systematically underpaying for crude oil by depressing 'posted prices' below market value. The class comprises millions of members across the US, asserting both state law 'Lease Claims' and federal 'Antitrust Claims' of price-fixing. The court addresses jurisdiction, class certification under Rule 23, the fairness and adequacy of the settlements, and issues related to notice, claim procedures, attorneys' fees, and incentive awards.

Antitrust LawClass Action SettlementOil and Gas RoyaltiesMultidistrict LitigationPrice Fixing ConspiracyFairness DoctrineRule 23 CertificationSupplemental JurisdictionDue Process RightsAttorney's Fees Award
References
71
Case No. MDL 1358
Regular Panel Decision

Koch v. Hicks

This Opinion and Order addresses a motion for class certification within a Multi-District Litigation concerning groundwater contamination by methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from a gasoline station. Plaintiffs sought to certify two subclasses: a Homeowner Subclass and a Medical Monitoring Subclass, bringing claims under Maryland law for public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence, and strict liability. The court granted certification for the Homeowner Subclass, finding it satisfied all requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, and was maintainable under Rule 23(b)(1). However, the motion for certification of the Medical Monitoring Subclass was denied, with the court concluding that medical monitoring constitutes a form of damages under Maryland law rather than a distinct cause of action. The court also clarified that, in the context of class certification within MDL, the law of the transferor circuit (Fourth Circuit) applies over the transferee circuit (Second Circuit), following the Supreme Court's decision in Lexecon v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach.

Class ActionClass CertificationMulti-District LitigationRule 23MTBE ContaminationGroundwater ContaminationUnderground Storage TanksEnvironmental LawToxic TortHomeowner Subclass
References
46
Case No. 01-16-00847-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2019

Adan G. Adame v. Glendale Optical

The case involves 106 sandblasters appealing the dismissal of their silica exposure claims. In 2005, the Texas Legislature enacted Chapter 90 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, creating a Silica multidistrict litigation (MDL) pretrial docket, establishing procedures for claims to advance to trial upon submission of compliant medical reports. The statute was amended in 2013 to allow dismissal without prejudice of pre-2005 claims if claimants failed to file qualifying medical reports by a specified deadline. The sandblasters filed their medical reports in 2013, but many were prepared before the 2005 statute specifying report content. The MDL Court sustained objections to almost all medical reports, dismissing all 106 claims without prejudice to refiling. The sandblasters appealed, arguing Chapter 90 is unconstitutional due to vagueness and retroactive application. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, overruling the sandblasters' constitutional challenges. It found that the statute's reference to the Code of Federal Regulations for impairment determination was not unconstitutionally vague, nor were the requirements for detailed medical and occupational histories. The court also rejected the argument that not specifying the AMA Guides edition caused vagueness, noting the MDL Court had clarified the applicable edition. The court further dismissed the challenge regarding specific x-ray findings for lung abnormalities, pointing to a 'safety valve' provision for atypical cases. Finally, the court held that granting the MDL Court authority to evaluate medical report sufficiency does not render the statute vague, aligning with established judicial roles in assessing expert evidence. The court concluded that the 2013 amendment adding dismissal procedures was not an unconstitutional retroactive law, as claimants had no vested right to indefinite litigation without providing reliable medical evidence.

Silica ExposureMultidistrict LitigationConstitutional LawDue ProcessVagueness ChallengeRetroactive LawMedical ReportsImpairment RatingOccupational DiseasePulmonary Impairment
References
32
Case No. 00 Civ. 1898, M21-88, MDL 1358
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Liability Litigation

This opinion and order denies Orange County Water District's (OCWD) motion to remand its action to state court. OCWD, a plaintiff in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving water contamination by MTBE, argued that its case was improperly removed from state court under bankruptcy statutes. The District Court, presided over by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, found that OCWD's motion to remand was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because it was filed more than 30 days after the notice of removal. The court emphasized that improper removal is a procedural defect, waivable if not challenged within 30 days, while a lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. As the court retained core bankruptcy jurisdiction, the motion was denied, highlighting Congress's intent to prevent late-stage forum shopping and ensure efficient litigation in MDLs.

Multidistrict LitigationMTBE ContaminationWater PollutionRemoval JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionBankruptcy LawRemand MotionProcedural DefectWaiver28 U.S.C. 1447(c)
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re GlobalSanteFe Corp.

John Lopez sued GlobalSantaFe Corp. (GSF) under the Jones Act for injuries from asbestos and silica exposure. Chapter 90 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which governs silica and asbestos litigation, mandates expert reports and consolidation in an MDL pretrial court. Lopez's case was transferred to the silica MDL pretrial court, which subsequently remanded it to the original trial court, asserting Chapter 90 was preempted by the federal Jones Act. GSF petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for mandamus relief. The Court ruled that Chapter 90's procedural elements, including expert report requirements and MDL consolidation, are not preempted by the Jones Act. However, Chapter 90's provision for a minimal physical impairment threshold for silica claims is preempted. The Court conditionally granted mandamus relief, instructing the MDL pretrial court to vacate its remand order and conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

PreemptionJones ActFederal Maritime LawState LawSilica LitigationAsbestos LitigationMDL ProceduresExpert TestimonyProcedural vs. Substantive LawMandamus Relief
References
28
Case No. 07-0040
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2008

in Re Globalsantafe Corporation

GlobalSantaFe Corp. (GSF) sought mandamus relief from the Supreme Court of Texas to vacate an MDL pretrial court's order. The pretrial court had remanded a silica-related case, originally filed by John Lopez against GSF under the Jones Act, back to the trial court, deeming Chapter 90 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code preempted by the Jones Act. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the general procedural framework of Chapter 90, particularly its expert report requirements and MDL consolidation provisions, is not preempted by the Jones Act. However, the Court found that Chapter 90's minimal-impairment provision for silicosis claims is preempted. The Court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, directing the MDL pretrial court to vacate its remand order and conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

MandamusPreemption DoctrineJones ActSilica ExposureExpert Witness TestimonyMultidistrict Litigation (MDL)Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Supreme CourtAppellate ProcedureState Law Preemption
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Reich

Plaintiffs, migrant workers, sued the Department of Labor (DOL) and other federal agencies, alleging violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Wagner-Peysner Act. They contended that the DOL unlawfully approved alien labor certification applications, specifically for tree planters hired by Frank Stanley. Plaintiffs argued that tree planters should be classified as agricultural workers, subject to more comprehensive protections under Subparts B and C of 20 C.F.R. § 655, rather than the less stringent procedures of Subpart A and the General Administration Letters. The court addressed the defendants' mootness argument, ruling that the case was capable of repetition yet evading review despite an earlier settlement with Stanley. Ultimately, the court found that tree planters are not agricultural workers under Part 655 and concluded that the DOL did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by applying different procedures for non-agricultural workers.

Administrative Procedures ActImmigration and Nationality ActWagner-Peysner ActAlien Labor CertificationMigrant WorkersTemporary Foreign WorkersAgricultural EmploymentNon-Agricultural EmploymentSummary JudgmentMootness Doctrine
References
11
Case No. C-0184-13-G
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2015

in Re Benevis, LLC, Dentistry of Brownsville, P.C., and Kool Smiles, P.C.

This case involves multiple plaintiffs (minor children) alleging civil conspiracy, fraud, and medical negligence against Kool Smiles dental clinics and individual dentists. The plaintiffs accuse the defendants of implementing a corporate scheme to maximize Medicaid revenue by performing unnecessary and barbaric dental procedures, often involving physical restraint without sedation, on underprivileged young children. Key issues include alleged over-diagnosis, excessive use of stainless steel crowns, and monitoring dentists' 'production goals' over patient care. This document specifically concerns a motion by the plaintiffs to amend a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants abused the protective order by marking nearly all produced documents as 'confidential,' including blank pages and public records, frustrating the discovery process. The trial court, now presiding over the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) for these cases, granted the motion, allowing broader dissemination of discovery materials to other litigants and potential litigants in the MDL, and to counsel and experts in an unrelated federal lawsuit filed by Kool Smiles against the plaintiffs' attorneys for defamation, which the defense argued against based on comity and fear of trade secret disclosure.

Dental MalpracticeCorporate NegligenceMedicaid FraudDiscovery AbuseProtective OrderShared DiscoveryPatient RestraintPediatric DentistryTexas LitigationCivil Conspiracy
References
35
Case No. MDL No. 1038
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2002

In Re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation

This multidistrict products liability action involved thousands of plaintiffs alleging injuries from the Norplant contraceptive device against American Home Products Corporation and its subsidiaries. The court considered two motions for partial summary judgment. The first, concerning the 'learned intermediary doctrine' and 26 primary side effects, was granted in part and denied for 10 plaintiffs whose cases were governed by New Jersey law due to an advertising exception. The second motion, addressing over 950 'exotic conditions' for which no causation evidence was presented, was granted against all plaintiffs. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment against 2,960 plaintiffs, effectively concluding the MDL proceedings for the majority of the non-settling cases.

Products LiabilityNorplantContraceptive DeviceLearned Intermediary DoctrineCausationSummary JudgmentMultidistrict LitigationFailure to WarnPharmaceuticalsTexas Law
References
61
Case No. No. M21-88, MDL 1358
Regular Panel Decision

United Water New York, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp.

This consolidated multi-district litigation (MDL) involves plaintiffs seeking relief from groundwater contamination caused by defendants' use of the gasoline additive MTBE and/or its degradation product TBA. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because the alleged MTBE contamination was below the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) and thus did not constitute a cognizable 'injury-in-fact.' Plaintiffs, including New York water purveyors and the Orange County Water District, countered that their statutory duties require them to address contamination even below MCLs, incurring costs for monitoring, testing, and treatment, and facing taste and odor issues. The court concluded that MCLs serve as a guidepost but do not definitively limit what constitutes a legally cognizable injury, noting that plaintiffs have duties to act before contamination reaches MCLs. Furthermore, the court found factual disputes regarding specific alleged injuries (e.g., taste/odor complaints, increased treatment costs, well shutdowns) to be premature for summary judgment. Therefore, defendants' motions for summary judgment were denied.

Multi-district litigationGroundwater contaminationMTBETBASummary judgmentArticle III StandingInjury-in-factMaximum Contaminant LevelWater quality standardsEnvironmental law
References
51
Showing 1-10 of 3,413 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