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. 90-00985-B-11 through 90-00990-B-11 and 90-01984-B-11 through 90-01989-B-11
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 1991

In Re Eagle Bus Manufacturing, Inc.

This case pertains to the confirmation of the Third Amended Plan of Reorganization under Chapter 11 for Greyhound Lines, Inc. and its Affiliated Debtors. The hearing was held on August 27 and 28, 1991, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Richard S. Schmidt in the Southern District of Texas. Numerous creditors and interested parties appeared, and several objections to the plan were filed. The Court, after reviewing evidence and arguments, overruled the remaining objections and found that the plan satisfied all applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The plan outlines the restructuring of debtor operations, treatment of various claims, and the liquidation or reorganization of subsidiaries. The Court ultimately confirmed the plan, emphasizing its feasibility and good faith in seeking to maximize returns for creditors and ensure the continuation of essential public services, with a specific exception for Eagle Bus Manufacturing, Inc.

Chapter 11 ReorganizationBankruptcy ConfirmationDebtors-in-PossessionCreditor ObjectionsPlan FeasibilityGood Faith PlanSecured Claims TreatmentUnsecured Claims TreatmentPriority Tax ClaimsNLRB Claim Estimation
References
5
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 Kliegl Bros. Universal Electric Stage Lighting Co.

The Trustee sought to confirm a plan of reorganization under Section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, facing objections from the Debtor and general unsecured creditors. The plan relied on votes from two impaired classes: a post-petition secured lender and a trade union (IBEW). The court ruled that the post-petition secured lender was not entitled to vote as their claim did not fall under Section 502 of the Code. However, the court found that the separate classification of the IBEW's general unsecured claim, with a higher payout, was permissible and not unfairly discriminatory. This separate classification was deemed reasonable and necessary for the Debtor (Kliegl) to maintain its union shop status, which was critical for its industry operations. Consequently, the IBEW's vote in favor was valid, allowing the plan to be confirmed via cram-down despite other objections.

Bankruptcy LawReorganization PlanCramdown ConfirmationCreditor ClassificationImpaired ClaimsUnfair Discrimination TestLabor Union ClaimsPost-Petition ClaimsSecured CreditorsUnsecured Creditors
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Fairpoint Communications, Inc.

Verizon Communications, Inc. appealed a bankruptcy court's confirmation order that included an injunction preventing Verizon from pursuing non-derivative claims against third parties, which could adversely affect FairPoint's bankruptcy estate. FairPoint, which acquired landline operations from Verizon, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy due to substantial debt. The reorganization plan featured a 'Verizon Injunction' designed to protect FairPoint's assets from claims where FairPoint might be liable for indemnification or contribution. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to issue this injunction, holding that such contingent indemnification obligations directly impact the bankruptcy estate. The court also deemed Verizon's alternative argument, concerning the absence of 'unique circumstances,' as equitably moot, citing the substantial consummation of the reorganization plan and Verizon's failure to seek a stay of the confirmation order.

BankruptcyChapter 11 ReorganizationInjunctionsSubject Matter JurisdictionEquitable MootnessThird-Party ClaimsIndemnificationContributionAppellate ReviewDistrict Court Decision
References
18
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
May 23, 1988

In Re Bludworth Bond Shipyard, Inc.

The case concerns the confirmation of a Debtor-in-Possession’s Plan of Reorganization following a hearing on May 23, 1988. The Debtor, a shipyard facility, faced financial difficulties after its worker’s compensation insurer, Northwest Insurance Company, failed. Despite paying approximately $150,000 on claims, the Debtor secured a $300,000 settlement from a state court suit against the underwriting company. At the confirmation hearing, six worker’s compensation claimants, through counsel, orally objected, asserting a failure of equity regarding the insurance settlement proceeds. However, no timely or formal objections were filed. The court ultimately confirmed the Plan, finding it compliant with Title 11, proposed in good faith, and fair and equitable, noting that untimely objections were waived. The court also clarified that the LHWCA, specifically 33 U.S.C. § 936, preserves longshoremen's claims despite employer bankruptcy, offering an alternative remedy.

BankruptcyReorganization PlanWorker's CompensationLHWCALongshoremen ClaimsInsurance FailureWaiver of ObjectionStatutory ConstructionDebtor-in-PossessionSettlement Proceeds
References
9
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,308 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