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. 3:12-cv-1009
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2013

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss class claims brought by the plaintiffs, Phipps et al. This case is a follow-on action to a larger nationwide class action against Wal-Mart (Dukes) that was decertified by the Supreme Court. The central issue is whether the American Pipe tolling doctrine extends to subsequent, narrower class actions (subclasses) after the original broad class was denied certification. The court reviewed prior circuit court decisions and recent Supreme Court precedents, noting inconsistencies and criticisms of rigid interpretations. Despite concerns about fairness and judicial economy, the court felt bound by the Sixth Circuit precedent in Andrews v. Orr, which held that American Pipe tolling does not apply to additional class actions by putative members of the original asserted class. Consequently, the court granted Wal-Mart's motion, dismissing the class claims as time-barred, though individual claims were allowed to proceed.

Class ActionStatute of LimitationsAmerican Pipe TollingRule 23Sex DiscriminationTitle VIIEmployment LawMotion to DismissJudicial PrecedentSubclass Certification
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Circuit City Stores, Inc. and Diana Beaufils filed an original petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s denial of their request to compel Ronald Giacoma to arbitration. Giacoma, a former employee, initially agreed to an arbitration program but later sued for retaliatory discharge after being fired. The court examined whether an enforceable arbitration agreement existed, considering Giacoma's arguments of no agreement, fraudulent inducement, and unconscionability. The appellate court found a valid agreement under the Federal Arbitration Act and determined the trial court abused its discretion by not enforcing it. Consequently, the writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, ordering arbitration and a stay of the civil action.

Arbitration AgreementMandamusRetaliatory DischargeEmployment ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActContract EnforcementAbuse of DiscretionOpt-out ProvisionFraudulent Inducement DefenseUnconscionability Defense
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Plaintiff Richard filed a class action lawsuit against Hoechst Celanese Chemical Group, Inc., Shell Oil Co., and E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., alleging damages from defective polybutylene plumbing systems and asserting RICO and Due Process claims. The court asserted subject matter jurisdiction over the RICO claim but dismissed the Due Process claim based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The plaintiff's motion for preliminary class certification was denied, citing Fifth Circuit precedent on the difficulty of certifying RICO class actions due to the individual reliance requirement. Ultimately, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish direct reliance on alleged misrepresentations as mandated by controlling Fifth Circuit precedent, Summit Properties v. Hoechst Celanese Corp. The court also rejected arguments for equitable relief under RICO as a way to avoid the reliance requirement.

Class ActionRICODue Process ClaimSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)Rule 12(b)(6)Class Certification DeniedSettlement Approval DeniedProximate CauseDirect Reliance
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

The plaintiffs, a minor child and her parents, filed a four-count complaint against Life Investors Insurance Company of America and Nicholas W. Humble, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation regarding a health insurance plan. They claimed the defendants induced them to terminate prior insurance and enroll in a plan that subsequently denied coverage for the daughter's scoliosis. The defendants sought dismissal, citing a lack of private right of action under an Alabama "twisting" statute and federal preemption under ERISA. The court granted dismissal for claims based on the "twisting" statute but denied it for the general fraud claims. It concluded that these fraud claims were not preempted by ERISA, reasoning that no federal remedy was available for alleged misconduct occurring before the plaintiffs became plan participants, following Sixth Circuit precedent.

ERISA preemptionfraudulent misrepresentationhealth insurancestate law claimsfederal question jurisdictiondiversity of citizenshippre-enrollment misconductlack of ERISA remedyAlabama state lawtwisting statute
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This memorandum by Chief Judge Morton addresses the determination of attorney fees in a case where defendant Vinson Thompson was found liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The court denied the defendant's request to delay the decision based on a proposed legislative amendment that ultimately failed. Furthermore, the court rejected the defendant's arguments to reduce fees due to alleged poor record-keeping, the plaintiff not prevailing against all defendants, or for a disproportionate relationship between fees and damages, citing established Sixth Circuit precedent, particularly Northcross v. Board of Education. The court awarded $9,084.00 in attorney fees to the plaintiff's attorney, Legal Services of Middle Tennessee, and determined that the Tennessee Department of Correction is responsible for payment, as Thompson was sued in his official capacity.

Attorney FeesCivil RightsStatutory FeesSixth Circuit LawLegal ServicesOfficial CapacityEleventh AmendmentCongressional IntentFee CalculationRecord Keeping
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

In this ERISA action, the plaintiff sought review of the defendant's termination of long-term disability benefits and filed a motion to compel discovery regarding alleged conflicts of interest, bias, and procedural irregularities. The defendant, Unum Life Insurance Co. and UnumProvident Corporation, countered with a motion for a protective order. Citing Sixth Circuit precedent, the court found that limited discovery outside the administrative record is permissible when a claimant identifies specific procedural challenges and provides a reasonable evidentiary basis. The plaintiff demonstrated such a basis through testimony from former employees and internal corporate documents hinting at policies to deny claims for financial reasons. Therefore, the court partially granted the plaintiff's motion to compel for specific discovery requests and partially denied the defendant's motion for a protective order, allowing for circumscribed discovery into these allegations.

ERISA BenefitsLong Term DisabilityDiscovery RulesConflict of InterestProcedural Due ProcessArbitrary and Capricious StandardAdministrative RecordMedical Advisor TestimonyClaims Handling PracticesInsurance Company Policies
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Plaintiff Michael Byrd sued defendant ABC Professional Tree Service, Inc. for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically regarding unpaid hours and overtime. The defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing the plaintiff's claims were time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The plaintiff contended that a three-year statute of limitations applied due to willful violations by the defendant, citing prior Department of Labor (DOL) investigations in 2005 and 2006 that found ABC liable for FLSA overtime violations. The court, referencing Sixth Circuit precedent, determined that these prior investigations provided sufficient evidence to create a question of fact regarding whether ABC's actions were willful, potentially triggering the three-year limitations period. Consequently, the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied.

FLSAOvertime PayWillful ViolationStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentDepartment of LaborPrior InvestigationsWage and Hour DivisionReckless DisregardEmployment Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Eddie O. Luellen, an injured USPS employee receiving FECA benefits, filed a Rehabilitation Act claim alleging disability discrimination after refusing a reassignment he deemed inconsistent with his medical limitations. The Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) initially found the reassignment suitable, terminated his FECA benefits, but later reversed its decision. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) then found the USPS in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. Defendant William Henderson, U.S. Postmaster General, moved to dismiss Luellen's request for judicial enforcement of the EEOC decision, arguing that the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) prevents the EEOC and the court from reviewing job suitability determinations made by the Secretary of Labor. The court, referencing Sixth Circuit precedent, concluded that FECA's unreviewability provision (5 U.S.C. § 8128(b)) bars collateral attacks on OWCP suitability decisions, even by the EEOC. Therefore, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationRehabilitation ActFECASubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissDisability DiscriminationJudicial ReviewEEOC DecisionOWCPFederal Employees
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This Bench Decision addresses motions for § 158(d)(2) certification to the Circuit and, alternatively, for a stay pending appeal of a July 5 Order in the bankruptcy proceedings of GM and its affiliates. Presiding Judge Robert E. Gerber denied both motions, finding the conditions for direct appeal to the Circuit were not met due to controlling precedent in the Second Circuit and the lack of a question of public importance that had not already been decided. Regarding the stay request, the court determined that the movants failed to establish a substantial possibility of success on the merits. Granting a stay would inflict catastrophic and irreparable harm upon GM, its multitude of creditors, 225,000 employees, 500,000 retirees, 11,500 suppliers, 6,000 dealers, and the broader North American auto industry, outweighing any potential harm to the appellants. The decision emphasized the critical public interest in allowing GM's essential asset sale to proceed without delay to avoid immediate liquidation.

Bankruptcy AppealSection 158(d)(2) CertificationRule 8005 StayEquitable Mootness DoctrineSuccessor LiabilityPublic Interest FactorsIrreparable HarmCorporate LiquidationCreditors' CommitteeJudicial Discretion
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This Memorandum-Decision and Order addresses the Defendants’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial, following a jury verdict awarding the unnamed Plaintiff $400,000 for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 retaliation claim. Presiding Judge Kahn previously allowed the Defendants to refile their motion due to a procedural defect. The Defendants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions on burden of proof and substantive law, the admission of evidence, and the excessiveness of the emotional damages award. The Court, citing Second Circuit precedents and declining to adopt First Circuit standards, denied both motions, affirming the jury's findings and the damage award.

Judgment as a Matter of LawRule 50(b) MotionRule 50(a) MotionNew Trial MotionRule 59 Motion42 U.S.C. § 1983 ClaimFirst Amendment ProtectionRetaliation ClaimJury Verdict ReviewEmotional Damages
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 1,979 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