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
May 22, 1995

Johnson v. City of Port Arthur

Glenn C. Johnson, a former employee of the City of Port Arthur, sought in forma pauperis status and appointment of counsel for a proposed ADA suit against his ex-employer after being terminated due to a disability. He suffered rhabdomy-dosis and could no longer perform strenuous tasks, leading to his termination. The City claimed inability to accommodate due to a lack of light-duty positions and budget cuts. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the in forma pauperis motion due to Johnson's financial hardship and diligent efforts to secure counsel, but denying appointment of counsel, finding his ADA claim lacked a substantial probability of success. The Magistrate Judge reasoned that changing a laborer to light-duty was not a 'reasonable accommodation' under the ADA. The District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, granting in forma pauperis status, denying appointment of counsel, and allowing Johnson until July 31, 1995, to file his Title VII complaint.

ADAAmericans With Disabilities ActIn Forma PauperisAppointment of CounselDisability DiscriminationEmployment LawReasonable AccommodationUndue HardshipEEOCMagistrate Judge Report
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2013

Bullard v. Texas Department of Aging & Disability Services

Teresa Bullard, proceeding pro se, filed a lawsuit alleging retaliation, HIPAA, FMLA, and age discrimination against her former employer, the Texas Department of Aging & Disability (DADS), and two individuals, Lance Duckworth and Velvet Archield. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the claims be dismissed with prejudice, finding that the ADEA and FMLA claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, there is no private cause of action under HIPAA, and the retaliation claim lacked sufficient factual allegations. The District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, granting the motion to dismiss and dismissing all claims with prejudice.

Pro SeMotion to DismissEleventh Amendment ImmunityADEA ClaimFMLA ClaimHIPAA ViolationRetaliation ClaimAge DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hansbrough v. Titlemax of Tennessee, Inc.

Plaintiff Sharon Hansbrough sued her former employer, TitleMax of Tennessee, alleging age discrimination in denying promotions and termination of employment. The Magistrate Judge, Tu M. Pham, recommended granting TitleMax's motion for summary judgment, finding that Hansbrough failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination for both claims. Hansbrough filed objections, which the District Judge, S. Thomas Anderson, found to be non-specific reassertions of facts already in the record. Consequently, the District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, thereby granting summary judgment in favor of TitleMax. The decision highlighted Hansbrough's failure to properly apply for promotions and her inability to demonstrate that similarly situated, non-protected employees were treated more favorably in the context of her termination.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawFailure to PromoteTerminationPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkCircumstantial EvidenceObjections to Magistrate ReportFederal Civil Procedure
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Myer v. Callahan

The case involves pro se plaintiff Turner Myer III seeking judicial review of a Social Security Administration (SSA) decision denying disability benefits. The defendant, SSA, moved to dismiss due to untimely filing. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting dismissal because Myer failed to file within the statutory period, didn't request an extension, and equitable tolling was deemed inapplicable. The District Court reviewed Myer's objections to this recommendation, finding them without merit. The court concluded that Myer's previous attempts to file in other district courts did not justify equitable tolling due to his subsequent inaction and the absence of court misconduct or threats. Consequently, the District Court overruled Myer's objections, adopted the Magistrate Judge's report, and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Disability BenefitsSocial SecurityEquitable TollingUntimely FilingSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigantPrisoner LitigationFifth CircuitMagistrate Judge ReportDistrict Court Order
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 1997

Riley v. Champion International Corp.

This case involves a lawsuit brought by Charles and Helen Riley against Champion International Corporation. Charles Riley, an independent logging contractor, contracted Lyme disease from a tick bite on Champion's property. Plaintiffs alleged negligence, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract for Champion's failure to warn about Lyme disease, and Helen Riley claimed loss of consortium and household services. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment on most tort claims but denying it for breach of contract. The Chief Judge adopted parts of this, affirming summary judgment on premises liability and misrepresentation negligence claims. However, the Chief Judge overruled the Magistrate Judge's conclusion on the "increased risk of harm" prong of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Champion's failure to provide safety information increased the risk of developing a chronic Lyme infection. Consequently, claims for breach of contract, negligent performance, gross negligence, loss of consortium, loss of household services, and punitive damages were revived for trial.

NegligenceBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLyme DiseaseIndependent ContractorDuty to WarnAssumed DutyGross NegligenceLoss of Consortium
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2014

Kostic v. Texas A & M University at Commerce

Plaintiff Nenad Kostic, a former tenured professor, sued Texas A&M University at Commerce (TAMUC) and five university officials for retaliation and defamation following his termination. The lawsuit included First Amendment retaliation claims against individual defendants for protected speech (religious proselytization, discrimination, lab safety concerns, and alleged cover-ups) and a Title VII retaliation claim against TAMUC. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting partial summary judgment for individual defendants Evans and Lemanski on the First Amendment claim, but denying it for Jang, Jones, and McKinney regarding Kostic's termination based on protected speech. Additionally, the recommendations included denying summary judgment on the Title VII retaliation claim and Jang's official immunity and qualified privilege defenses on the defamation claim. The District Judge, Barbara M.G. Lynn, accepted these findings and recommendations.

RetaliationFirst AmendmentQualified ImmunityOfficial ImmunityDefamationSummary JudgmentPublic Employee SpeechAcademic FreedomReligious DiscriminationWorkplace Safety
References
105
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eddins v. Excelsior Independent School District

These consolidated actions address whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law tort claims stemming from a dispute over the educational rights of two children, Mary W. and Christy McD. The Magistrate Judge recommended declining supplemental jurisdiction, citing the lack of a common nucleus of operative facts between the federal claim (42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for enforcing administrative orders) and the state law tort claims, and the predominance of state law claims. District Judge Hannah conducted a de novo review, affirmed these findings, and adopted the Magistrate Judge's report, thereby overruling plaintiffs' objections and declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state tort claims.

Supplemental JurisdictionState Law ClaimsTort ClaimsFederal ClaimsEducational RightsDisability LawSection 1983Magistrate Judge ReportDe Novo ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reado v. Texas General Land Office

Plaintiff, a former employee of the Texas General Land Office, filed a lawsuit alleging race and age discrimination under Title VII and the ADEA following his termination. He also sought to proceed in forma pauperis and requested appointment of counsel. Magistrate Judge Earl S. Hines recommended granting the in forma pauperis motion but denying the request for counsel. After plaintiff objected, District Judge Cobb conducted a de novo review, overruled the objections, adopted the magistrate judge's report, and consequently granted the in forma pauperis motion while denying the motion for appointment of counsel.

Employment DiscriminationAge Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)Title VII Civil Rights ActIn Forma Pauperis MotionAppointment of Counsel DenialMagistrate Judge RecommendationDe Novo ReviewObjections OverruledDiscretionary Appointment of CounselSufficiency of Evidence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flynn v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CAS. INS. CO.(TEXAS)

The case involves Plaintiffs Curtis, Lidia, and John Flynn's lawsuit against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company following the burglary of their Kentucky home, which State Farm insured. State Farm denied their claim, raising questions about policy coverage and alleged fraud. The Plaintiffs asserted various causes of action, including breach of contract, bad faith, and violations of the Texas Insurance Code, along with claims for negligence and gross negligence in claims handling. Defendants moved to dismiss the negligence and gross negligence claims, arguing Texas law does not recognize such a cause of action. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion, and District Judge Philip R. Martinez adopted this recommendation, dismissing the negligence and gross negligence claims with prejudice. The court affirmed that Fifth Circuit precedent, interpreting Texas law, consistently holds that there is no recognized cause of action for negligent claims handling.

Motion to DismissNegligence ClaimsGross NegligenceInsurance CoverageClaims HandlingTexas LawFifth CircuitErie DoctrineBreach of ContractBad Faith Insurance
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 1997

Florence v. Runyon

Gerald G. Florence sued the Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service alleging handicap discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Florence claimed an unwanted transfer in December 1990 was discriminatory and retaliatory. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing Florence was not 'otherwise qualified' for his job and that the transfer had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason. The court addressed the appropriate legal standards for § 501 claims and the 'otherwise qualified' definition for limited duty employees. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment on both the discrimination and retaliation claims, finding material fact questions existed. The District Judge adopted this recommendation.

Handicap DiscriminationRehabilitation ActTitle VII RetaliationSummary Judgment MotionAdverse Employment ActionLimited Duty AssignmentEmployment LawFederal CourtFifth CircuitPretext
References
58
Showing 1-10 of 10,068 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