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. 11 CIV. 0377(CM)
Regular Panel Decision

Pippins v. KPMG LLP

This case concerns a decision granting Defendant KPMG LLP's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims with prejudice and their New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs, current and former Audit Associates at KPMG, alleged that KPMG violated overtime pay requirements by classifying them as exempt. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, determined that Audit Associates qualify as "learned professionals" under the FLSA exemption. This conclusion was based on their specialized academic training, customary CPA-eligibility, and the requirement for them to exercise discretion and judgment in performing audit procedures, despite some routine tasks and supervision. The court rejected Plaintiffs' arguments that their work was purely rote and found their duties essential to the accounting profession, thus exempting them from FLSA overtime requirements.

FLSANew York Labor LawLearned Professional ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionAudit AssociatesKPMGOvertime PaySummary JudgmentAccounting StandardsCPA Eligibility
References
39
Case No. G-01-CV-670
Regular Panel Decision

Kimmel Ex Rel. Estate of Kimmel v. TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY

This order addresses multiple lawsuits stemming from the tragic 1999 Texas A&M Bonfire collapse, which resulted in twelve deaths and twenty-seven injuries. Plaintiffs alleged that Texas A&M University and various officials violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by depriving victims of substantive due process through deliberate indifference to a state-created danger, and also pursued state law negligence claims. The Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the federal claims, ruling that the University was shielded by Eleventh Amendment immunity. It further found that the University Officials' actions, while possibly negligent, did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference required for a constitutional violation, dismissing these federal claims with prejudice. Finally, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law negligence claims, dismissing them without prejudice for resolution in state court.

Bonfire collapseTexas A&M University42 U.S.C. 1983Substantive Due ProcessState Created DangerEleventh Amendment ImmunityQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentFederal Law ClaimsState Law Claims
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed by former employees (Plaintiffs) against James W. Giddens, as SIPA Trustee for MF Global Inc., and Louis J. Freeh, as Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., MF Global Finance USA, Inc., and MF Global Holdings USA, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the federal WARN Act and the New York WARN Act due to employment termination without sufficient notice. The Court granted the SIPA Trustee's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding the "liquidating fiduciary" principle applicable to MFGI as its statutory purpose was liquidation. However, the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice and with leave to amend, as the factual record did not conclusively establish that the Chapter 11 Debtors were solely liquidating at the time of layoffs, and the complaint was otherwise deficient. Claims for vacation pay and unpaid wages were dismissed without prejudice to be handled in the claims allowance process.

WARN ActNew York WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffsPlant ClosingsBankruptcy ProceedingsCorporate LiquidationChapter 11 ReorganizationSIPA TrusteeLiquidating Fiduciary Principle
References
26
Case No. 2022-01-0453
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2022

Poole, Zachary v. Rhea Ambulance Service, LLC

Zachary Poole, an emergency technician, filed a petition seeking workers' compensation benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), alleging it stemmed from multiple disturbing incidents during his employment with Rhea Ambulance Service, LLC. The employer moved to dismiss, asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim for a mental injury, and statute of limitations issues. The Court granted the dismissal, concluding that Poole failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction because some causative incidents occurred before July 1, 2014, and his alleged mental injury did not arise from a single, identifiable work-related event as required by Tennessee law. Consequently, the case was dismissed with prejudice.

PTSDMental InjuryWorkers' CompensationSubject Matter JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsEmergency Medical ServicesCumulative TraumaDate of InjuryDismissalTennessee Law
References
3
Case No. 2015-01-0255
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2016

Munyan, Bart C. v. PCL Industrial Construction Co.

Bart C. Munyan's workers' compensation claim against PCL Industrial Construction Co. and Old Republic Ins. Co. was dismissed with prejudice. The claim stemmed from injuries Munyan sustained in a fall, which he alleged were work-related. The employer filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing lack of compensability. Munyan failed to file a response or appear for the motion hearing. The Court determined that Munyan did not provide sufficient expert medical evidence to establish a causal connection between his injuries and work conditions, as required under Tennessee workers' compensation law and summary judgment standards, leading to the dismissal.

Workers' Compensation ClaimMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentCompensabilityExpedited HearingMedical EvidenceExpert ProofBurden of ProofDismissal with PrejudiceTennessee Workers' Compensation Law
References
3
Case No. 2016-01-0439
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2017

Swafford, Michael v. Morristown Drives Service, Inc.

This case involved Michael T. Swafford, Employee, against Morristown Drivers Service, Inc., Employer, and Cherokee Ins. Co., Carrier. The claim was heard on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Morristown Drivers Service, Inc. The central issue was Mr. Swafford’s repeated failure to file for a hearing as required by law and court orders, despite multiple extensions. The Court considered the motion as a Motion to Dismiss for failure to prosecute pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02(1). Consequently, the Court dismissed Mr. Swafford's claim with prejudice to its refiling due to his non-compliance.

Failure to prosecuteDismissal with prejudiceWorkers' Compensation LawCourt ordersShow Cause HearingDispute Certification NoticeStatus ConferenceProcedural non-complianceFiling feesJudicial discretion
References
2
Case No. ADJ525374 (LAO 0758607)
Regular
Jun 27, 2013

LAEURIA ELLIOTT vs. NATIONAL HOUSING MINISTRIES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal to dismiss several lien claims. These liens were dismissed with prejudice for failure to pay the required lien activation fee by the lien conference, as mandated by Labor Code section 4903.06(a)(4). The Board relied on its prior en banc decision in *Figueroa v. B.C. Doering Co.*, which held that proof of payment is required at the lien conference and dismissal with prejudice is automatic for non-compliance. No notice of intention to dismiss was necessary in this case.

Petition for RemovalLien ClaimsLien Activation FeeLabor Code Section 4903.06Dismissal With PrejudiceFigueroa v. B.C. Doering Co.Lien ConferenceProof of PaymentWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
1
Case No. ADJ2710071 (STK 0215121)
Regular
Sep 11, 2017

WILLIAM FORD vs. GALLO GLASS COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Gallo Glass Company's Petition for Removal. Gallo Glass sought disqualification of the administrative law judge (WCJ) alleging prejudice based on the WCJ's recommendation to deny their reimbursement request. The WCAB found that Gallo Glass failed to demonstrate the significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for removal under Labor Code section 5310. Furthermore, the petition did not meet the procedural requirements for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311, lacking the necessary sworn affidavit detailing the grounds for bias.

Petition for RemovalDisqualificationAgreed Medical ExaminerReimbursementWCJ prejudiceLabor Code section 5310Labor Code section 5311WCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10452affidavit
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2010

Dingle v. City of New York

Anthony Dingle, a superintendent for the New York City Housing Authority, sued his employer, the City of New York, and his supervisor, Demetrice Gadson. He alleged retaliation under the First Amendment for reporting chronic understaffing and public health and safety violations, and due process violations for defamation. The court addressed defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, granting it in part and denying it in part. It found Dingle adequately pled First Amendment retaliation but dismissed his due process liberty interest claim with prejudice for failing to meet "stigma plus" requirements. Additionally, state law claims for defamation and whistleblower protection were dismissed without prejudice due to non-compliance with New York's notice of claim requirements.

First Amendment RetaliationDue Process ClaimsDefamationPublic Employee SpeechWhistleblower ProtectionMunicipal LiabilityQualified Immunity DefenseMotion for Judgment on the PleadingsEmployment LawNew York City Housing Authority
References
78
Case No. 00-CV-1598
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2003

Jenkins v. NORTHWOOD REHAB. & EXTENDED CARE FACIL.

Plaintiff Pamela Joan Jenkins sued her prospective employer for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging failure to accommodate her back problems which limited her lifting capacity as a physical therapist. The employment offer was rescinded after a health questionnaire revealed her inability to perform maximum assist lifts, a job requirement. Highgate considered and rejected various accommodations, deeming them impractical, unsafe, or requiring the elimination of essential job functions. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green burden-shifting test and found that Jenkins could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA, unable to perform the essential functions of the job even with accommodation. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice and the state law claims without prejudice.

ADA discriminationDisability employmentReasonable accommodationEssential job functionsSummary judgmentPhysical therapistBack injuryMcDonnell Douglas testQualified individualEEOC claim
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 9,960 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