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

Holloway v. HECI Exploration Co. Employees' Profit Sharing Plan

This case involves an appeal challenging a bankruptcy court's authority and its judgment concerning ERISA profit-sharing plan benefits. Pat S. Holloway, a former president of HECI Exploration Company, Inc., sought to recover benefits from the HECI Employees’ Profit Sharing Plan after being excluded from a partial distribution. The bankruptcy court determined the proceeding was 'related' but not 'core' and entered a final judgment finding Holloway was a qualified participant but had waived his right to the June 1984 distribution. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment, concluding that the Plan had effectively waived its right to an Article III determination and that the bankruptcy court's waiver findings were not clearly erroneous under Texas common law, which the parties stipulated to implicitly.

ERISAProfit Sharing PlanBankruptcy LawChapter 7Core ProceedingNon-Core Related ProceedingWaiver (Legal Doctrine)Article III CourtAppellate ReviewFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 1997

Tait v. Barbknecht & Tait Profit Sharing Plan

Dana Tait, a former attorney, sued the Barbknect & Tait Profit Sharing Plan, The Barbknect Firm, and Joseph A. Barbknect, challenging the denial of her employee pension benefits and the defendants' delay in providing plan documents under ERISA. Tait's employment was terminated, and her request for account distribution was denied, with the defendants claiming she was zero percent vested. The court reviewed the plan administrator's decision under an 'abuse of discretion' standard, concluding their interpretation of the vesting provisions was legally incorrect and inconsistent with a fair reading of the plan. Consequently, the court granted Tait's motion for summary judgment, finding her benefits were vested and imposing a $13,600 statutory civil penalty for the delayed document provision. Additionally, the court awarded attorney's fees and costs to Tait, while denying the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment and subsequent motion to alter or amend the judgment.

ERISAPension BenefitsSummary JudgmentEmployee Retirement Income Security ActPlan Administrator DiscretionVesting ProvisionsCivil PenaltyAttorney's FeesBenefit DenialDocument Disclosure
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 1989

In Re Volpe

This case addresses the objection by NCNB-Texas National Bank to the exemption claimed by Dr. and Mrs. Volpe (Debtors) for their qualified employee profit sharing plan and individual retirement accounts under Chapter 7 bankruptcy. NCNB argued that the relevant Texas Property Code (T.P.C. § 42.0021) was preempted by ERISA and that debtors could only exempt a single account. The court, after an extensive analysis of ERISA's preemption clause and Supreme Court precedents like Mackey, concluded that T.P.C. § 42.0021 is not preempted by ERISA, as its connection to ERISA plans is too remote to be considered regulatory. Furthermore, applying a liberal interpretation of Texas exemption laws, the court determined that a debtor's overall retirement plan, even if held in multiple accounts, is exempt. Therefore, NCNB's objection was overruled, and the debtors' accounts were deemed exempt.

Bankruptcy LawExemption ClaimERISA PreemptionTexas Property CodeRetirement BenefitsProfit Sharing PlanIndividual Retirement AccountsFederal Bankruptcy CodeState Exemption LawSpendthrift Trust
References
41
Case No. 15-24-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2024

Cecile Erwin Young, in Her Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc.; And Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc. v. Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction and the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction issued by the 353rd Judicial District of Travis County. The appellants, including Cecile Erwin Young (Executive Commissioner of HHSC), Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc., and Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc., are challenging the lower court's decision. The appellees (Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company) had sought to enjoin the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) from proceeding with STAR & CHIP and STAR Kids managed care procurements. The core legal arguments revolve around whether HHSC's procurement processes violated Texas law, thereby rendering the intended contract awards unlawful ultra vires acts, and whether the appellees' claims are barred by sovereign immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The appellants contend that the district court abused its discretion by granting the injunction and denying the plea.

Appellate CourtTemporary InjunctionPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsProcurement DisputeManaged Care ContractsMedicaidCHIPTexas Health and Human Services Commission
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Robert Plan Corp.

Kenneth Kirschenbaum, the Chapter 7 Trustee for The Robert Plan Corporation and The Robert Plan of New York Corporation, sought court approval for fee awards for himself and his professionals for administering an ERISA plan. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) objected, asserting the court lacked jurisdiction to award fees from Plan assets and had specific objections to the reasonableness of the fees. The court affirmed its core jurisdiction over the Trustee's actions as Plan administrator and his professionals' compensation, regardless of whether payments came from Plan or estate assets, citing previous rulings. The court analyzed whether Bankruptcy Code §§ 326 and 330 conflicted with ERISA statutes concerning fiduciary compensation, concluding no substantive conflict existed and the Bankruptcy Code's specific compensation scheme governed. Ultimately, the court largely overruled DOL's objections and granted the fee applications for the Trustee, K & K, Witz, and Whitfield, deeming the requested amounts reasonable and compliant with the Bankruptcy Code. The awards are payable from the Plan's Pguy Account, with any shortfall covered by the Debtors' estate.

Bankruptcy LawERISAChapter 7 TrusteeFee ApplicationPlan AdministrationJurisdictionReasonable CompensationStatutory ConstructionDepartment of LaborFiduciary Duties
References
50
Case No. 07-09-00163-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2010

Potter County, Texas as Plan Administrator for the Health Benefits Plan for the Employees of Potter County, Texas v. Ronda Tuckness and Michael Tuckness

Potter County, acting as the plan administrator for its employee health benefits plan, appealed an order that denied its plea to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit was filed by Ronda and Michael Tuckness, seeking health care benefits after the County denied Michael Tuckness's claim for back surgery costs due to an occupational injury exclusion. The County contended it was immune from suit. The appellate court found that the County's governmental immunity had not been waived by the requests for declaratory relief, the terms of the health plan contract, or the County's conduct. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the Tucknesses' case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Governmental ImmunityImmunity WaiverDeclaratory JudgmentContract LawHealth BenefitsPlan AdministratorOccupational Sickness/InjuryJurisdictionPlea to JurisdictionInterlocutory Appeal
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pig Newton, Inc. v. Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan

Plaintiff Pig Newton, Inc. commenced an action against the Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan, Health Plan, and Individual Account Plan, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Plans’ Trust Agreements were invalid and unenforceable. The Defendants counterclaimed for delinquent contributions under ERISA. The core dispute revolved around "Controlling Employee Provisions" in the Trust Agreements, which obligated employers to contribute for Controlling Employees for a specified number of hours and weeks regardless of actual hours worked. Pig Newton argued these provisions were invalid, not properly incorporated, or conflicted with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The Court, applying federal common law and an arbitrary and capricious standard of review for the Directors' interpretation, found the provisions valid, properly incorporated, and not in conflict with the CBAs, concluding that Szekely (Pig Newton's sole owner) qualified as a Controlling Employee. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and awarding Defendants the sought-after contributions, interest, auditors’ fees, and liquidated damages.

ERISAMultiemployer PlanPension PlanHealth PlanDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentTrust AgreementsCollective Bargaining AgreementsControlling Employee ProvisionsDelinquent Contributions
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Murphy v. Wal-Mart Associates' Group Health Plan

Hazel and Charlie Murphy sued Wal-Mart Associates’ Group Health Plan and Prudential Health Care Plan after the Plan denied coverage for Mr. Murphy's high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplant for Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. The Murphys alleged the Wal-Mart Plan acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying benefits and their subsequent appeal, and brought state law claims against Prudential. The court found that Wal-Mart Plan's decision was based on medical expert opinions and was not arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, it determined that ERISA preempted all state law claims against Prudential. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for both defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims.

ERISAEmployee BenefitsHealth InsuranceSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious StandardMedical NecessityHigh-Dose ChemotherapyAutologous Bone Marrow TransplantNon-Hodgkin’s LymphomaPlan Administrator Discretion
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laflamme v. Carpenters Local 370 Pension Plan

Plaintiff Michael LaFlamme initiated a class action against the Carpenters Local #370 Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) concerning the plan's 'freezing rule' for benefit accrual after a 'break in service.' LaFlamme sought a judicial declaration that this rule contravenes ERISA's minimum accrual standards, along with a reformation of the pension plan and recalculation of benefits for all affected class members. The court, presided over by District Judge Hurd, evaluated the motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b), finding that the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were met. Consequently, the motion for class certification was granted, establishing a class comprised of all plan participants, active or retired, who experienced a service break resulting in frozen benefit accrual rates. The decision also outlined procedures for providing notice to the newly certified class members, while deferring detailed adjudication of defenses like statute of limitations and exhaustion of remedies to later dispositive motions.

ERISAPension BenefitsClass ActionBenefit AccrualFreezing RuleBreaks in ServiceClass CertificationRule 23(a)Rule 23(b)Federal Civil Procedure
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ZANG & OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. Paychex, Inc.

The plaintiff, Steven R. Zang, a trustee of Luxon & Zang PC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan & Trust, sued Paychex, Inc. under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Zang alleged that Paychex violated ERISA by prioritizing its financial interests and engaging in prohibited transactions through "revenue-sharing" payments from mutual funds and a custodial bank account holding plan assets. Paychex sought to dismiss the complaint, citing statute of limitations and arguing it was not a fiduciary. The court found that claims related to bank revenue-sharing were time-barred due to disclosure, but claims concerning mutual fund revenue-sharing were not. However, the court ultimately granted Paychex's motion to dismiss, concluding that Paychex did not hold fiduciary status with respect to the Plan, which was essential for all of the plaintiff's ERISA claims.

ERISAFiduciary DutyBreach of Fiduciary DutyMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsRevenue Sharing401(k) PlanPlan AssetsDiscretionary AuthorityProhibited Transactions
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 1,850 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