Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 2017-03-0080

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 13, 2018

Duignan, Duwan v. Stowers Machinery Corporation

This Remand Compensation Order, issued by the Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, addresses the case of Duwan Duignan against Stowers Machinery Corporation and Zurich American Insurance Company. Following a remand from the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, Judge Pamela B. Johnson determined Mr. Duignan is entitled to 51.03 weeks of permanent partial disability benefits, amounting to $41,801.22. This decision was based on a seven-percent permanent impairment rating, overriding a conflicting nine-percent rating. The Court also ordered Stowers to continue providing medical treatment and approved a twenty-percent attorney's fee for Mr. Duignan's counsel, totaling $8,360.24.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical Impairment RatingAttorney FeesRemand OrderTreating PhysicianBenefit CalculationDisability BenefitsJudicial ReviewStipulation

References

Case No. 2019-06-1008

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 23, 2021

Harris, Patricia v. Nashville Center for Rehabilatation and Healing

The Court initially awarded workers’ compensation benefits and a 20% attorney's fee for permanent and temporary disability benefits, but denied a 20% fee for unpaid medical benefits. Both parties appealed, with the employee challenging the denial of attorney's fees for medical benefits. The Appeals Board affirmed the original decision except for the attorney's fee denial and remanded the case with instructions to award the fee. This Order on Remand, therefore, grants the employee’s attorney an additional fee of $5,209.16, representing twenty percent of the unpaid medical expenses, to be paid by the employee. The prior September 28, 2020 compensation order is incorporated, with the exception of the holding denying the attorney’s fees for medical expenses.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesMedical BenefitsRemandAppeals BoardCourt OrderEmployee RightsEmployer ResponsibilitiesIndemnity InsuranceWorkers' Compensation Claims

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Keyser v. Kroger Company

This order addresses a motion to remand a case concerning a plaintiff's alleged wrongful discharge after filing a work-related injury claim under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. article 8307c. The defendant, Kroger, contested the applicability of article 8307c due to its non-subscriber status to the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act. However, the Court ruled that article 8307c applies to any worker, irrespective of the employer's subscription to the Act. Citing 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) and relevant precedents, the Court determined that actions under article 8307c fall under Texas workers' compensation laws and are thus more suitable for state court jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court vacated its previous order denying the motion and remanded the case to the 17th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas.

Wrongful DischargeWorkers' Compensation RetaliationTexas Workers' Compensation ActRemoval JurisdictionState Court RemandFederal PreemptionArticle 8307cNon-subscriber EmployerJurisdiction DisputeStatutory Interpretation

References

Case No. ADJ3835561 (GOL 0099475)

Regular

Jul 12, 2011

CESAR HERNANDEZ vs. J.D. HUMANN LANDSCAPING, INC., NATIONAL LIABILITY AND FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATORS

The defendant sought reconsideration of an order setting aside a compromise and release, alleging the order was ex-parte and issued without notice. However, the defendant later withdrew its petition, explaining it was unaware of lien claimant correspondence and had since negotiated a resolution for attorney fees. The Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration and remanded the case to the trial level for further proceedings. This action allows for reinstatement of the original compromise and release and approval of the negotiated stipulation for attorney fees.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Setting Aside Order Approving Compromise and ReleaseEx-parteLien ClaimantEstate of Michael StevensStipulation and AwardAttorney FeesRemandTrial Level

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Pace Union, Local 4-1 v. BP PIPELINES (N. AMERICA)

The PACE Union sued BP Pipelines (North America), Inc. to enforce or remand an arbitration award concerning the termination of employee Darrell Jackson. An arbitrator previously ruled against BP, ordering Jackson's reinstatement with back pay and outlining bumping and bidding rights. However, the parties disagreed on the specific implementation of these remedies. The District Court granted the Union's motion for summary judgment and denied BP's, remanding the case to the original arbitrator, Barnett Goodstein, for clarification of Jackson's precise bumping and bidding rights. The court emphasized the erosion of the functus officio doctrine and the federal policy supporting efficient arbitration.

Arbitration Award EnforcementLabor Management Relations ActLMRASummary JudgmentRemand to ArbitratorFunctus Officio DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee TerminationWrongful DischargeBack Pay

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Richardson v. Owens-Illinois Glass Container, Inc.

This order addresses a plaintiff's motion to remand, where the central issue is whether a claim under Article 8307c of Vernon's Annotated Statutes, concerning wrongful discharge for filing workers' compensation claims, should be considered as arising under Texas workmen's compensation law. Federal statute 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) generally prohibits the removal of state workmen's compensation actions to federal court. While earlier federal cases in Texas leaned towards remand, more recent Texas appellate decisions have distinguished wrongful discharge claims from direct workers' compensation benefits, asserting that the latter pertains specifically to physical injuries. Citing these precedents and other federal rulings, the court concludes that an Article 8307c claim does not fall under the Texas workmen's compensation act for removal purposes. Consequently, the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court is denied.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DischargeRetaliatory DischargeMotion to RemandFederal JurisdictionState Law InterpretationArticle 8307cTexas LawDiscrimination ClaimRemoval Statute

References

Case No. ADJ1186781 (VNO 0516635) ADJ1590743 (VNO 0552326)

Regular

Jun 10, 2013

DANA BONSALL vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured

Defendant County of Los Angeles petitioned to set aside an order compelling payment of $14,500 to lien claimant, The 4600 Group. The defendant argued the order was based on mistake, as they were unaware of prior payments made to Burbank Podiatry, which was part of the lien claim. Crucially, the assigned judge realized she was disqualified due to previously serving as defense counsel in this matter. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the prior order, and remanded the case to a new judge to determine if the settlement should be set aside.

WCABPetition to Set AsideStipulation and OrderLien ClaimantWCJ DisqualificationRule 9721.12(c)(2)Good CauseRescinded OrderRemandBurbank Podiatry

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Amoco Chemical Co. v. Tex Tin Corp.

This case concerns a motion to remand filed by Amoco Chemical Co. and Amoco Corp. after their state court breach of contract action against Tex Tin Corp. was removed to federal court. The core dispute involves Tex Tin's alleged failure to reimburse Amoco for environmental cleanup expenses mandated by an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the EPA. The Plaintiffs argued for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, claiming their breach of contract suit did not arise under federal law. However, the court determined that the interpretation of the AOC, a contract with a federal agency, necessarily invoked federal common law. Consequently, the Court found federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331 and denied both the motion to remand and the associated request for costs and attorney's fees.

Federal Question JurisdictionBreach of ContractEnvironmental RemediationAdministrative Order on ConsentCERCLANational Priorities ListRemoval JurisdictionFederal Common LawContract InterpretationSubject Matter Jurisdiction

References

Case No. 12-cv-6439-RWS

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 12, 2012

In re Facebook, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael Zack moved to remand his proposed class action against NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and NASDAQ Stock Market LLC to New York State Court. Zack alleged negligence by NASDAQ regarding system design and conduct during the Facebook IPO on May 18, 2012, which led to order execution problems for investors. NASDAQ removed the action to the Southern District of New York, asserting federal question jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The court considered the 'Grable exception' to the well-pleaded complaint rule, finding that Zack's state-law negligence claims necessarily implicated substantial federal issues concerning NASDAQ's regulatory duties as a self-regulatory organization under the Exchange Act. Citing precedent like D’Alessio v. New York Stock Exch., the court determined that the case required construing federal securities laws and evaluating NASDAQ's federally defined duties, thus conferring federal question jurisdiction. Consequently, Zack's motion to remand was denied.

Federal Question JurisdictionMotion to RemandClass ActionSecurities Exchange ActNASDAQFacebook IPONegligenceSelf-Regulatory OrganizationExchange RulesS.D.N.Y.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In Re Ran

This is an order from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court after remand from the district court, concerning the recognition of a foreign bankruptcy proceeding under Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Zuriel Lavie, the Israeli trustee, sought recognition of an Israeli bankruptcy proceeding against Yuval Ran. The central issue was determining Ran's "center of main interests" (COMI). The court meticulously reviewed objective factors, including Ran's physical presence, family, employment, and community ties in Houston, Texas, since 1997, as well as his reasons for leaving Israel. The court concluded that Ran's COMI is in the United States, which aligns with his habitual residence, thereby denying Lavie's petition for recognition of the Israeli bankruptcy.

BankruptcyChapter 15Foreign Proceeding RecognitionCenter of Main Interests (COMI)Habitual ResidenceDebtorCreditorInternational Insolvency LawUNCITRAL Model LawForum Shopping

References

Showing 1-10 of 31,586 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 2017-03-0080

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 13, 2018

Duignan, Duwan v. Stowers Machinery Corporation

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical Impairment RatingAttorney FeesRemand OrderTreating PhysicianBenefit CalculationDisability BenefitsJudicial ReviewStipulation

References

Case No. 2019-06-1008

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 23, 2021

Harris, Patricia v. Nashville Center for Rehabilatation and Healing

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesMedical BenefitsRemandAppeals BoardCourt OrderEmployee RightsEmployer ResponsibilitiesIndemnity InsuranceWorkers' Compensation Claims

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Keyser v. Kroger Company

References

Case No. ADJ3835561 (GOL 0099475)

Regular

Jul 12, 2011

CESAR HERNANDEZ vs. J.D. HUMANN LANDSCAPING, INC., NATIONAL LIABILITY AND FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATORS

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Setting Aside Order Approving Compromise and ReleaseEx-parteLien ClaimantEstate of Michael StevensStipulation and AwardAttorney FeesRemandTrial Level

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Pace Union, Local 4-1 v. BP PIPELINES (N. AMERICA)

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Richardson v. Owens-Illinois Glass Container, Inc.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DischargeRetaliatory DischargeMotion to RemandFederal JurisdictionState Law InterpretationArticle 8307cTexas LawDiscrimination ClaimRemoval Statute

References

Case No. ADJ1186781 (VNO 0516635) ADJ1590743 (VNO 0552326)

Regular

Jun 10, 2013

DANA BONSALL vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured

WCABPetition to Set AsideStipulation and OrderLien ClaimantWCJ DisqualificationRule 9721.12(c)(2)Good CauseRescinded OrderRemandBurbank Podiatry

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Amoco Chemical Co. v. Tex Tin Corp.

References

Case No. 12-cv-6439-RWS

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 12, 2012

In re Facebook, Inc.

Federal Question JurisdictionMotion to RemandClass ActionSecurities Exchange ActNASDAQFacebook IPONegligenceSelf-Regulatory OrganizationExchange RulesS.D.N.Y.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In Re Ran

BankruptcyChapter 15Foreign Proceeding RecognitionCenter of Main Interests (COMI)Habitual ResidenceDebtorCreditorInternational Insolvency LawUNCITRAL Model LawForum Shopping

References

Showing 1-10 of 31,586 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.