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

Martinez v. Superior HealthPlan, Inc.

Plaintiffs, sales representatives for Superior HealthPlan, Inc., alleged misclassification as independent contractors and sought overtime wages under the FLSA, along with claims under ERISA and COBRA. The ERISA and COBRA claims were previously dismissed. Defendants Superior HealthPlan, Inc. and Centene Corporation moved for summary judgment, arguing Plaintiffs were independent contractors or exempt outside sales employees. The Court, without ruling on the independent contractor status, focused on the outside sales employee exemption. It found that Plaintiffs' primary duty was making sales away from the employer's business and that they met the external indicia for outside salespersons, despite some employer supervision. Consequently, the Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding that Plaintiffs were exempt outside sales agents as a matter of law. Superior's counterclaims for overpayment against two plaintiffs remain pending.

FLSAFair Labor Standards ActOvertime wagesIndependent contractorEmployee misclassificationOutside sales exemptionSummary judgmentSales representativesMedicare Advantage plansEmployer-employee relationship
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holick v. Cellular Sales of New York, LLC

Plaintiffs, a group of Sales Representatives, initiated an action against defendants Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. and Cellular Sales of New York, L.L.C., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law. They claimed misclassification as independent contractors, which led to a deprivation of guaranteed compensation, including minimum wage and overtime. Defendants responded with motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, and alternatively, to compel mediation/arbitration based on clauses in the sales agreements. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, affirming its power to adjudicate FLSA claims. However, it granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration, determining that the mediation clauses were valid, unwaived, and that FLSA claims are arbitrable under federal law, leading to the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. All other pending motions, including plaintiffs' request for conditional collective action certification, were subsequently denied as moot.

FLSALabor LawMisclassificationIndependent ContractorCollective ActionArbitrationMediationSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)
References
28
Case No. 7:10-CV-1132
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2010

Gorey v. MANHEIM SERVICES CORPORATION

This is a conditionally certified Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action where Plaintiff Carol Gorey and other opt-in plaintiffs, identified as "outside sales representatives" for Manheim auto auctions, sued for alleged improper classification as overtime-exempt employees under FLSA and New York state law. Manheim cross-moved, asserting the plaintiffs were properly classified as exempt due to outside sales or administrative duties. The court found that Manheim failed to prove the applicability of either the outside salesmen or administrative employee exemptions, thereby granting in part and denying in part both parties' motions. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to the Plaintiffs on their FLSA and New York labor and wage claims. Furthermore, the court limited the collective action to thirty-two opt-in plaintiffs, applying a two-year statute of limitations for ordinary FLSA violations, and specified Manheim Remarketing, Inc., and Manheim Investments, Inc. as the proper defendants, granting summary judgment to other corporate parents.

FLSAOvertime PayExemptionsOutside Salesman ExemptionAdministrative Employee ExemptionCollective ActionSummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawStatute of LimitationsWillful Violation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arnold v. Reliant Bank

The plaintiff, Julie A. Arnold, a former mortgage loan originator at Reliant Bank, filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination under Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act, along with a claim for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA. Arnold claimed she was discriminated against through withheld commissions, failure to assign business, exclusion from meetings, and termination, in addition to a hostile work environment. She also argued she was improperly classified as an exempt outside sales employee and denied overtime. The court denied Reliant Bank's motion for summary judgment on the gender discrimination claims due to direct evidence of discriminatory intent, but granted summary judgment to Reliant on the hostile work environment claim. Both parties' motions for summary judgment regarding the FLSA outside sales exemption were denied, citing genuine disputes of material fact about the extent of Arnold's off-site sales activities.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentFLSAOvertime WagesOutside Sales ExemptionMortgage Loan OriginatorDirect EvidencePrimary Duty Test
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Craftmatic Comfort Manufacturing Corp. v. New York State Tax Commission

Petitioner, a Pennsylvania corporation selling adjustable beds, challenged a sales and use tax assessment for the period of March 1978 to February 1981. The corporation argued that sales of its beds, when prescribed by a physician, should be exempt as medical equipment under Tax Law § 1115 (a) (3). The respondent's determination disallowed this exemption, claiming the beds were not primarily used for medical purposes. The court, however, found the respondent's decision lacked substantial evidence, citing approvals from the Workers’ Compensation Board, Medicare, and the FDA, all of which classified the beds as medical devices or hospital beds. Consequently, the court annulled the portion of the determination denying the exemption for prescription sales and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Sales TaxUse TaxMedical Equipment ExemptionHospital BedsPhysician's PrescriptionSubstantial EvidenceTax LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewTax Assessment
References
5
Case No. 03-99-00265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2000

Ford Motor Company Freightliner Truck Corporation Sterling Truck Corporation Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. And Daniel H. Foley, Jr./Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation v. Motor Vehicle Board, Texas Department of Transportation/Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. Daniel H. Foley, Jr. Freightliner Truck Corporation Sterling Truck Corporation And Ford Motor Company

This case involves an appeal from a district court judgment concerning an order from the Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation. The dispute originated from Ford's proposed termination of Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc.'s franchise due to alleged abuse of Ford's Competitive Price Assistance (CPA) program, where Metro misrepresented customer names to obtain higher discounts. The Board found good cause for termination but imposed a conditional termination remedy requiring the sale of Metro's dealership. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination for good cause, the refusal to transfer the dealership to Eileen Beard, and the denial of Ford's requested chargeback expenses. However, it reversed and remanded the district court's affirmation of the Board's conditional termination remedy, finding it unlawful.

Franchise TerminationDealer FraudCPA Program AbuseStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawMotor Vehicle BoardEquitable EstoppelGood Cause TerminationAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
33
Case No. 06-Civ.-2268
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2008

In Re Novartis Wage and Hour Litigation

This consolidated class action lawsuit addresses whether pharmaceutical sales representatives (Reps) employed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NPC) are entitled to overtime pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and corresponding New York and California state wage laws. Plaintiffs, current and former Reps, claim they qualify for overtime, while NPC argues they are exempt as outside salespersons or administrative employees. The Court granted summary judgment for NPC, finding that the Reps are exempt from overtime requirements as outside salespersons and administrative employees under both federal and state laws. The court also noted that some highly compensated employees would also be exempt, but did not need to fully rule on that point given the broader exemptions found.

Overtime PayFLSA ExemptionOutside Sales ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionPharmaceutical IndustryWage and Hour LawsClass ActionSummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawCalifornia Labor Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Complete Auto Sales, Inc. v. Life Insurance Co. of North America

Plaintiff Complete Auto Sales, Inc. (Complete) filed a motion to remand its case against defendant Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) back to state court. The case originated from Complete seeking contribution/indemnity from LINA, its insurer, for claims made against Complete by an injured employee. LINA had removed the case to federal court, arguing ERISA preemption. While some claims were partially remanded earlier, Complete now argues that LINA's insurance policy is exempt from ERISA jurisdiction, citing a prior ruling where a similar LINA policy was found to be state-governed. The court agreed, finding the current policy similar and not preempted by ERISA, thus lacking federal subject matter jurisdiction. Consequently, the motion to remand was granted, sending the case back to the 162nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.

ERISA PreemptionRemoval JurisdictionState Law ClaimsInsurance Policy ExemptionFederal Question JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to RemandTexas LawFifth CircuitDistrict Court
References
12
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
Case No. 05-15-00837-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2016

J&M Sales of Texas, LLC v. Anette H. Sams

Anette H. Sams sued J&M Sales of Texas, LLC for negligence after sustaining an injury from a falling shelf in a retail store. Sams secured a default judgment for $45,350.79 against J&M Sales. J&M Sales subsequently moved for a new trial, asserting that their failure to file an answer was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, that they possessed a meritorious defense based on Sams's potential contributory negligence, and that a new trial would not cause undue delay or injury to Sams. The trial court denied this motion. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that J&M Sales had successfully met all three elements of the Craddock standard for granting a new trial, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Negligence ClaimDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionCraddock StandardMeritorious DefenseConscious IndifferenceContributory NegligenceAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 2,137 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