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

Myer v. Americo Life, Inc.

Robert L. Myer appealed the trial court's judgment confirming an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act in favor of Americo Life, Inc. Myer raised fourteen issues on appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to vacate the award. His contentions included claims that the arbitration panel exceeded its authority, the award was made in manifest disregard for the law, the award failed the fundamental rationality test, and it contravened public policy. Myer also challenged the award of attorneys' fees. The appellate court, finding no reversible error, affirmed the judgment of the trial court, upholding the arbitration award and the subsequent confirmation.

ArbitrationContract LawNon-compete ClauseNon-solicitation ClauseFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Missouri State LawAppellate ReviewArbitration Award ConfirmationRescissionRestitution
References
30
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. E2020-01123-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2022

Melanie Miller Hollis v. Charles Myers Hollis, Jr.

This appeal stems from a divorce case between Melanie Miller Hollis (Wife) and Charles Myers Hollis, Jr. (Husband) in Tennessee. Wife challenged the trial court's classification of Husband's "book of business" as future income rather than marital property, while Husband raised issues concerning child support, alimony, and marital estate division. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety, upholding the property classification, child support award of $8,516 per month for their two special needs children, and alimony in futuro of $6,210 per month for Wife. The court also remanded the case for the trial court to determine and award Wife her reasonable attorney's fees incurred on appeal related to child support and alimony issues.

divorcemarital propertychild supportalimonyfinancial advisorbook of businessintangible assetsequitable divisionspecial needs childrenspousal support
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Myers v. Pension Fund, Local One Amalgamated Lithographers of America

The plaintiff, Mr. Myers, challenged the defendant Pension Fund's decision to provide him with a withdrawal benefit instead of a monthly pension. Myers had left the lithographic industry in 1973 and opted for a vested pension, but the Fund later denied his monthly pension, alleging he returned to the industry without proper notification or resuming contributions. Myers' claims of violations under the Sherman Antitrust Act and New York General Business Law were dismissed, with the latter preempted by ERISA. The court also found that the specific ERISA vesting provisions cited by Myers did not apply to the Fund. However, because new affidavits presented by Myers indicated that one of his employers, ASL, might not be part of the lithographic industry—evidence not considered by the Fund's Trustees—the court remanded the case. The Fund is directed to re-evaluate Myers' eligibility based on whether ASL or Towanda (another employer) are indeed part of the lithographic industry.

ERISAPension BenefitsVesting ProvisionsSummary JudgmentRemandEmployee BenefitsAntitrust LawsState Law PreemptionLithographic IndustryWithdrawal Benefits
References
7
Case No. 2018-06-1243
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2018

Myers, Althea v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

Althea Myers, a general laborer for Tyson Foods, Inc., sustained a right-knee injury after tripping over a pallet at work on April 5, 2018. Tyson Foods denied her workers' compensation claim, citing a pre-existing knee condition and alleged resolution of pain. Ms. Myers requested medical treatment for persistent knee pain. The Court found Ms. Myers' testimony credible regarding the incident and the persistence of her pain. Although Ms. Myers had not yet established compensability, the Court determined she showed a likelihood of establishing entitlement to evaluation and potential treatment. Therefore, the Court ordered Tyson Foods to authorize an evaluation and potential treatment with Dr. Moore.

Knee InjuryMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingPre-existing ConditionCausationEmployer DutyPhysician PanelCredibilitySelf-Insured EmployerTennessee Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hickey v. Myers

Plaintiff Thomas Hickey, a former Dean at SUNY Cobleskill, alleged retaliation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against SUNY Cobleskill, its former President Donald P. Zingale, and former Provost Anne C. Myers. Hickey claimed he faced adverse actions for opposing the college's admission and retention policies, which he believed constituted racial discrimination by disproportionately affecting African-American students. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion: dismissing Title VI claims against Myers and Zingale in their individual capacities, and all claims related to Hickey's unsuccessful application for a Provost position at SUNY Delhi. However, the Title VI claim against SUNY Cobleskill and the Section 1981 claim against Myers and Zingale (in their individual capacities) regarding Hickey's removal as Dean remained viable for trial.

RetaliationTitle VISection 1981Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentHigher EducationAdmissions PoliciesRetention PoliciesAcademic Standards
References
40
Case No. 2-03-081-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2003

Gerald DeMarsh, Sr. v. Texas Workforce Commission Mrs. Cassie Carlson Reed Mrs. Courtenay Browning, Unemployment Appeals Director And J. L. Myers Company

Appellant Gerald DeMarsh, Sr., appealed the trial court's judgment affirming the Texas Workforce Commission's (TWC) denial of unemployment compensation benefits. DeMarsh voluntarily left his employment with J.L. Myers Company, citing unsafe equipment and difficulty hiring staff. The TWC determined he was not entitled to benefits, a decision affirmed by the TWC Appeal Tribunal. The Denton County Court at Law No. 2 also affirmed the TWC's ruling, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeals, Second District of Texas, upheld the trial court's judgment, concluding that the TWC's determination was reasonable because DeMarsh did not afford his employer the opportunity to remedy safety concerns before quitting and acknowledged difficulties with staffing.

Unemployment BenefitsVoluntary QuitGood CauseSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewTexas LawWorkplace SafetyEmployer ResponsibilityPro Se LitigationAdministrative Decision
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. State

Mary Myers, a Seventh Day Adventist, was terminated from her employment by the Transit Authority for her refusal to work on Saturdays due to religious observance. Despite the Transit Authority's attempts to accommodate her, the Transport Workers Union's collective bargaining agreement, which prioritized seniority for work assignments and days off, prevented such accommodation without waiving other employees' seniority rights. The Commissioner of Human Rights found Ms. Myers' religious convictions sincere. However, the court, citing precedent regarding union seniority systems, annulled the administrative determination that had supported Ms. Myers. Justice Rubin, in a concurring opinion, criticized the legal framework that exempts union seniority systems from civil rights statutes, arguing for a joint employer and union obligation to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs, especially for quasi-public entities.

Religious discriminationSeniority systemCollective bargaining agreementReasonable accommodationSabbath observanceFreedom of religionFirst AmendmentCivil Rights ActExecutive LawEmployment termination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Myers v. Secretary of Department of Treasury

The plaintiff, George Myers, an IRS employee, filed several EEO claims for age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. After being reassignment, he filed a federal complaint alleging discrimination under the ADEA and New York State Executive Law. The defendant, Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, moved for judgment on the pleadings due to Myers's failure to properly serve the summons and complaint as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(i) and 4(m). While acknowledging attorney neglect, the Court, exercising its discretion and considering the expiration of the statute of limitations and the government's prior notice of the claims, denied the motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiff an additional 30 days to effect proper service.

Age DiscriminationHarassmentRetaliationService of ProcessFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(i)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m)Motion to DismissStatute of LimitationsAttorney NeglectJudicial Discretion
References
15
Case No. 01-14-01018-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Ricky D. Parker and James Myers v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation

This case involves an interlocutory appeal concerning a temporary injunction granted against Ricky D. Parker and James Myers (Appellants) in favor of Schlumberger Technology Corporation (Appellee). Parker and Myers, former managers of a business acquired by Schlumberger, allegedly breached restrictive covenant agreements by forming a competing wireline, slick line, and braided line business and soliciting Schlumberger employees and customers. Schlumberger sought to enforce these non-compete clauses, leading to the District Court's temporary injunction. The Appellants challenge the scope of the injunction and the denial of their motion to compel arbitration. Schlumberger argues that the injunction is reasonable, Texas law was appropriately applied, and the arbitration motion was correctly denied.

Restrictive CovenantsNon-Compete AgreementInterlocutory AppealTemporary InjunctionChoice of LawArbitrationBreach of ContractEmployee SolicitationCustomer SolicitationOilfield Services
References
51
Showing 1-10 of 46 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