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. 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. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. 2023-06-7650
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2025

Salmon, Marsha v. Octapharma Plasma

The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims at Nashville granted Octapharma Plasma's motion to dismiss with prejudice against Marsha Salmon. Ms. Salmon, the employee, failed to comply with multiple court orders, including providing responses to written discovery and identifying medical experts by the set deadlines. She also neglected to file a written response to the dispositive motion, despite explicit warnings from the Court. Citing Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02(1) and (3) for failure to prosecute and to comply with court orders, the Court deemed Ms. Salmon's efforts to advance her case insufficient and dismissed the claim with prejudice to its refiling.

Motion to DismissFailure to ProsecuteCompliance with Court OrdersWritten DiscoveryMedical ExpertsImpairment RatingProcedural HistoryWorkers' Compensation ClaimsTennessee LawDismissal with Prejudice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
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. 2016-06-0702
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2020

Willis, Earl v. Express Towing

Mr. Willis sustained an injury while working for Express Towing, an uninsured employer. The Court initially found him eligible for benefits from the Uninsured Employers Fund (UEF). However, due to the bankruptcy discharge of Allen Mann, the sole owner of Express Towing, the potential liability of Mann and Express Towing was voided. Consequently, the Court found the case moot and dismissed it with prejudice, unable to conduct a compensation hearing. Despite Mr. Willis's diligent efforts to prosecute his claim, his attempts were halted by the bankruptcy ruling, and the UEF cannot be joined as a party to the workers' compensation claim for additional relief.

Workers' Compensation LawUninsured EmployerBankruptcy DischargeCase DismissalMootnessUninsured Employers FundEmployee BenefitsDisability RatingJudicial ReviewProcedural History
References
0
Case No. 2015-05-0136
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2016

Hickey, Curtis v. Hermitage Hall

This case involves an employee, Curtis Hickey, who filed a Petition for Benefit Determination. The employer, Hermitage Hall, moved for dismissal due to Mr. Hickey's repeated failures to prosecute his claim and comply with court orders, including not requesting a hearing, failing to appear, and not responding to discovery requests. Mr. Hickey's counsel argued that his misconduct was unintentional and occurred while he was unrepresented, stemming from a lack of understanding of complex procedures and a belief that his medical records were private. The Court, however, found Mr. Hickey's actions to be an intentional disregard for court rules and an active refusal to obey orders, noting his continued non-compliance even after retaining counsel. Consequently, the Court granted the employer's motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Failure to ProsecuteDiscovery ViolationsOrder of DismissalWorkers' CompensationProcedural RulesSanctionsNon-ComplianceUnrepresented PartyMedical RecordsIntentional Disregard
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanderson v. Roethenmund

This is an action brought by investors, including the Sandersons, alleging fraud in the marketing of international certificates of deposit (ICDs) by defendants Otto Roethenmund, Leslie Deak, Liselotte M. Deak, and the Estate of Nicholas Deak. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on several grounds, including failure to plead fraud with particularity, statute of limitations, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court determined that ICDs are indeed securities under federal law, rejecting the jurisdictional argument. However, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs failed to plead fraud with the required particularity under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, the court ruled that the Section 12 Securities Act claims were time-barred, clarifying that periodic rollovers of ICDs did not constitute new sales. Consequently, the federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Securities FraudInternational Certificates of DepositRule 9(b) ParticularityStatute of LimitationsSubject Matter JurisdictionDefinition of SecurityInvestment FraudEquitable TollingRollover TransactionsDismissal with Prejudice
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jung v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP

Jonathan Jung sued his former employer Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, alleging race and national origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Skadden moved to compel arbitration and stay litigation, citing an arbitration agreement Jung signed upon employment. Jung opposed, arguing Skadden waived its right to arbitrate by engaging in protracted litigation, specifically a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and causing prejudice through excessive cost, delay, and forum shopping. The court, presided over by Judge Mukasey, found that Jung had not suffered sufficient prejudice to establish waiver. The court noted that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not create substantive prejudice akin to discovery advantages, and mere pretrial expense and delay are not enough to constitute waiver. The court also rejected Jung's forum shopping argument based on Second Circuit precedent. Consequently, Skadden's motion to compel arbitration and stay the action was granted.

DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActWaiver of ArbitrationRule 12(b)(6) MotionPrejudice
References
22
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
Showing 1-10 of 13,427 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