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. Claim No. 300000720; ECF Doc. # 7818
Regular Panel Decision

In re MF Global Inc.

This case involves an objection by the SIPA Trustee of MF Global Inc. (MFGI) to a putative class claim filed by former employees for damages under the WARN Act and for unpaid accrued vacation time. The Court previously dismissed the WARN Act claims in related adversary proceedings (Thielmann I and II). The class claimants conceded their WARN Act claims were barred, leading the Court to sustain the Trustee's objection to those claims. However, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection to the claim for unpaid accrued vacation time, finding that the putative class claim satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court emphasized that allowing the vacation pay claim to proceed as a class action would result in the most expeditious administration of the MFGI estate, especially since the Trustee had conceded liability for vacation pay. The MFGI Class Claimants were directed to file a motion for class certification as soon as practicable.

BankruptcyClass ActionWARN ActVacation Pay ClaimsClass CertificationRule 23Claims ObjectionSIPA LiquidationEmployee BenefitsBar Date
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parrott v. Commissioner SSA

The plaintiff sought judicial review of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's decision denying disability benefits. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it was not timely filed. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion to dismiss, concluding the complaint was untimely. The plaintiff filed objections, introducing a new theory of constructive possession of the complaint by the clerk. The District Court, after de novo review, overruled the plaintiff's objections, citing the impropriety of raising new legal theories before the district judge that were not presented to the magistrate judge. Consequently, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss.

Social Security DisabilityJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissTimelinessFiling DeadlinesMagistrate Judge RecommendationsObjections to ReportDe Novo ReviewConstructive PossessionFederal Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 1994

Tatum v. Community Bank

Brenda Tatum, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for in forma pauperis status and appointment of counsel in a proposed Title VII racial discrimination suit against her former employer, Community Bank. Magistrate Judge Earl S. Hines recommended granting in forma pauperis but denying counsel, citing a lack of a meritorious claim despite Tatum establishing a prima facie case. Tatum filed objections, arguing that the employer's stated reasons for her termination were a pretext for racial discrimination. District Judge Joe J. Fisher conducted a de novo review, adopting the magistrate judge's report and overruling Tatum's objections. The court granted Tatum's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but denied her request for appointed counsel, concluding that her subjective beliefs and speculative allegations were insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success or prove discriminatory intent.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment LawTitle VIIIn Forma PauperisAppointment of CounselPro Se LitigantPrima Facie CasePretextDisparate TreatmentMagistrate Judge Report
References
22
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

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

Pike v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.

This ERISA action involves Gina Pike's challenge against Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company's termination of her long-term disability benefits. Hartford initially paid benefits for over six years under the "Any Occupation" definition but ceased payments, claiming improved functionality. The Magistrate Judge found in favor of Plaintiff, concluding her disability persisted based on treating physicians' opinions, her chronic pain, and medication side effects, while giving minimal weight to Hartford's reviewing physicians. The District Judge conducted a de novo review, overruled Hartford's objections, and adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings, reinstating Plaintiff's LTD benefits. Plaintiff was also deemed entitled to prejudgment interest, costs, and attorney's fees, with amounts to be determined in a separate motion.

ERISALong Term DisabilityBenefits TerminationChronic PainLumbar Degenerative Disc DiseaseRadiculopathySpinal Fusion SurgeryPain ManagementIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Treating Physician Opinion
References
81
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1995

In Re Minor

The court consolidated two Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, In re Minor and In re Mills, concerning objections by the Chapter 13 Trustee to the debtors' claims of exemption for lump-sum workers' compensation benefits. Debtors Kevin S. Minor, Angela D. Minor, and Martin Blaine Mills had received these settlements post-confirmation and sought to exempt them under Tennessee law. The primary issues resolved by Chief Judge Richard S. Stair, Jr. were whether these awards constituted property of the estate under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1306(a) and whether they should be included as "disposable income" for plan confirmation under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1325(b)(2). The court held that workers' compensation awards are indeed property of the estate and, despite state law exemptions, must be included in the calculation of disposable income to be applied to the Chapter 13 plan, to the extent not reasonably necessary for the debtors' support or business operations. Consequently, the Trustee's objection to amended exemptions was sustained in part, affirming that the benefits are property of the estate and disposable income, but overruled in part as debtors could still claim exemption under state law.

Chapter 13 BankruptcyWorkers' CompensationExemptionsDisposable IncomeProperty of EstatePost-Confirmation ModificationBankruptcy CodeTennessee LawLump Sum SettlementStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Luttrell

The Chapter 7 Trustee, Ann Mostoller, objected to the Debtor's claim of exemption for $150,000 received under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA). The Debtor, widow of a Department of Energy employee, received these benefits due to her husband's occupational illness (lung cancer) as a 'covered employee' under EEOICPA. The Trustee argued that the Tennessee exemption statute (Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-111(1)(C)) applied only to the individual suffering the illness, not to a dependent. The court disagreed, finding that the EEOICPA benefits, like social security and veterans' benefits, vest in surviving spouses and fall within the scope of protections intended by the Tennessee General Assembly. Therefore, the court overruled the Trustee's objection, allowing the Debtor to exempt the entire $150,000.

BankruptcyExemptionChapter 7Occupational Illness Compensation Program ActEEOICPAEnergy EmployeesSurvivor BenefitsDisability BenefitsState ExemptionsFederal Exemptions
References
28
Case No. 05-91224
Regular Panel Decision

In Re McBride

This Memorandum Opinion addresses a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case where debtor Diane McBride claimed her ExxonMobil Savings Plan as exempt under Texas state law. The Trustee objected to the exemption of her after-tax contributions, amounting to $4,840.00. The Court analyzed whether ERISA-qualified savings plans, including after-tax contributions, are 'excluded' from the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2) due to an anti-alienation provision, or merely 'exempt' under state law. Citing Patterson v. Shumate, the Court concluded that the presence of an anti-alienation clause in an ERISA-qualified plan means the funds are excluded from the bankruptcy estate. Therefore, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection.

BankruptcyERISARetirement PlanAfter-Tax ContributionsExemptionExclusionAnti-alienation ProvisionSpendthrift TrustTexas Property CodeChapter 7
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Harlan

The Debtors, who filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, claimed an exemption for the proceeds from the voluntary sale of their homestead under Article 3834, Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated. Kettering Construction Company, a creditor, objected, arguing that the exemption's intent was for reinvestment in a new homestead within six months, and the court should verify this use. The Court, referencing White v. Stump, determined that exemption rights are fixed at the time of the bankruptcy petition's filing. Since the Debtors filed within the six-month period, the proceeds were exempt at that time, and subsequent use is irrelevant. The Court found no fraud in the timing of the petition to protect the exemption. Therefore, Kettering Construction Company's objection was overruled.

BankruptcyHomestead ExemptionChapter 7State Exemption LawsProceeds of SaleDate of FilingCreditor ObjectionFraud AllegationTexas LawStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,362 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