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. Dkt. No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v. Student Loan Corp.

Lead plaintiffs Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System and Elk-horn Partners LP brought a putative class action against Student Loan Corporation, its officers, Citigroup, Citibank, Citi Holdings, and Discover Financial Services. Plaintiffs alleged that Student Loan Corp. violated GAAP by failing to maintain adequate reserves for student loan losses and materially misrepresented its loan portfolios and risk exposure in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the defendants' motion, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead actionable misrepresentations or omissions, scienter, and loss causation. The Court also noted that the named plaintiffs lacked standing due to a prior settlement order in a related Delaware action.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissGAAP ViolationsLoan Loss ReservesFinancial DisclosuresPrivate Securities Litigation Reform ActScienterLoss CausationCorporate Governance
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 1998

Lebovits v. Chase Manhattan Bank (In Re Lebovits)

Daniel Lebovits, a Chapter 7 debtor, filed an adversary proceeding to discharge his student loan debt, arguing it imposed an "undue hardship." The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Dorothy Eisenberg, found that repayment of the $49,040.12 debt would indeed cause undue hardship for Lebovits and his seven dependents. The court applied the three-prong Brunner test, determining that Lebovits could not maintain a minimal standard of living, his financial difficulties would persist, and he had made good faith efforts to repay. Consequently, the court granted the discharge of the student loans.

Student Loan DischargeUndue HardshipBankruptcy Chapter 7Brunner TestDebtor's DependentsFinancial HardshipMinimal Standard of LivingGood Faith RepaymentReligious FreedomFamily Expenses
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bene v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In re Bene)

Ms. Bene, a 64-year-old assembly line worker facing imminent job loss, sought to discharge her $56,000 student loan debt after making minimal payments over 25 years. The court analyzed her case under the 'undue hardship' test established in In re Brunner, considering how economic terms and the William D. Ford Program's debt forgiveness options have evolved since 1987. Despite earlier life choices, such as prioritizing parental care over completing her education, the court concluded that Ms. Bene met both the Brunner test and a 'totality of circumstances' test, citing her age, lack of professional qualifications, austere lifestyle, and absence of future financial prospects. Consequently, the court ordered the discharge of her student loan debt.

Student LoansUndue HardshipBrunner TestWilliam D. Ford ProgramBankruptcy DischargeFinancial DistressElderly DebtorCaregivingEmployment PrecarityEconomic Circumstances
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldman v. Bank of New York (In Re Goldman)

Cecilia R. Goldman, a Chapter 7 debtor, sought to discharge her student loan obligation from The Bank of New York, guaranteed by NYSHESC, claiming undue hardship due to health issues and related medical expenses. NYSHESC objected, stating that the five-year repayment period had not elapsed and that repayment would not cause undue hardship. The court determined that despite her medical condition, Goldman was employed with a $17,000 annual salary, was single, had no dependents, and had discharged over $13,000 in other debts. The court concluded that Goldman failed to prove the 'hopelessness or exceptional circumstances' necessary for an undue hardship finding under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(B), and consequently, her complaint was dismissed.

Student LoanBankruptcyUndue HardshipChapter 7DischargeabilityMedical ConditionFinancial HardshipGuaranteed LoanFederal Bankruptcy CodeDebtor-Creditor Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2010

Mauro v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Plaintiff Maria Mauro brought an action against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and several other defendants, including her investment advisor Peter J. Dawson and the Kaplan defendants (attorneys for Countrywide), alleging federal claims under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and various state law claims. Mauro claimed that the proceeds from two mortgage loans, secured by her investment rental properties, were misappropriated by Dawson. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that TILA was inapplicable because the loans were for business purposes and that the Kaplan defendants were not 'creditors' under the statute. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the TILA claim, concluding that the loans were indeed for business purposes, thus exempting them from TILA's coverage. The court also found that the Kaplan defendants did not qualify as 'creditors' under TILA. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Truth in Lending ActTILA ExemptionBusiness PurposeInvestment PropertySummary JudgmentFederal JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMortgage FraudCreditor Definition
References
57
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02766 [160 AD3d 921]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2018

Clarke v. First Student, Inc.

Ibia M. Clarke, an employee of First Student Management, LLC (FSM), sustained personal injuries due to a defective condition at FSM's premises. She subsequently filed a negligence action against First Student, Inc., the premises owner. The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing it was an alter ego of FSM, making workers' compensation her exclusive remedy under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially denied the defendant's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendant successfully demonstrated, prima facie, that it was an alter ego of the plaintiff's employer, FSM. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint was granted.

Personal InjuryNegligenceSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyAlter Ego DoctrineEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewCorporate Structure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thoms v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Thoms)

Kashima Thoms, a Chapter 7 debtor, initiated an adversary proceeding seeking the discharge of her substantial student loan obligations totaling $90,948.58, citing "undue hardship" under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). Educational Credit Management Corp. (ECMC) became the primary defendant, administering all of Thoms's student loans. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court applied the Second Circuit's stringent three-part Brunner test, which requires demonstrating an inability to maintain a minimal living standard, persistence of this hardship, and good faith repayment efforts. The Court found that Thoms, earning $48,000 annually, had sufficient disposable income, and her financial prospects were likely to improve, particularly with potential changes in childcare expenses and family living arrangements. Crucially, Thoms had made only minimal payments years prior and failed to utilize available loan restructuring options, thereby failing to prove good faith. Consequently, the Court ruled that Thoms did not establish undue hardship, denying the discharge of her student loan debts.

Bankruptcy LawStudent Loan DischargeUndue Hardship DoctrineBrunner TestChapter 7 BankruptcyAdversary ProceedingFinancial DistressRepayment EffortsFederal Student LoansDebtor-Creditor Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shenk v. U.S. Dep't of Educ. (In re Shenk)

Timothy J. Shenk, Sr. (Debtor) filed an adversary proceeding seeking to discharge his federal and state student loans due to undue hardship under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). The Debtor, a 59-year-old veteran with a history of blue-collar jobs and recent unemployment, argued his inability to maintain a minimal standard of living if forced to repay the loans. The court applied the Brunner test, finding that while the Debtor met the first prong regarding current inability to pay, he failed the second and third prongs. The court determined that his financial situation was likely to improve with an upcoming military pension and potential employment, and he had not made good faith efforts to repay the loans, having never made voluntary payments and having spent discretionary funds on personal items instead. Consequently, the court found the student loan obligations non-dischargeable and dismissed the Debtor's complaint.

Student Loan DischargeUndue HardshipBankruptcy11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)Brunner TestAdversary ProceedingPro Se DebtorVeterans AffairsFinancial DistressGood Faith Effort
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2005

Doe v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Doe)

The Debtor, Jane Doe, aged 46, sought to discharge student loans managed by Educational Credit Management Corporation (ECMC) due to "undue hardship" under § 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court found that the Debtor met the three-part Brunner test, demonstrating an inability to maintain a minimal standard of living, additional circumstances likely to persist (chronic illnesses, support for her dependent mother, and grim employment prospects), and good faith efforts to repay her loans when able. The decision grants the discharge of her student loans, emphasizing the specific and challenging circumstances of her case.

Student Loan DischargeUndue HardshipBankruptcyBrunner TestDependent SupportFinancial DistressChapter 7Income Contingent RepaymentMedical ExpensesEmployment Prospects
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stern v. Education Resources Institute Inc. (In Re Stern)

James E. Stern, a 35-year-old attorney, sought to discharge his student loans totaling over $100,000 under Chapter 7 bankruptcy, arguing "undue hardship" under Code § 523(a)(8). Stern, who recently closed his law practice due to rising malpractice insurance costs and moved to France with his wife, contended he could not maintain a minimal standard of living if forced to repay the loans. Defendants, TERI and ECMC (assignee of ASA), argued Stern failed the three-prong Brunner test for undue hardship. The court found that while Stern met the first prong (current inability to pay), he failed the second, as his financial hardship was not deemed long-term or beyond his reasonable control, particularly given his education, lack of disability, and his choice to move abroad rather than seek employment in the U.S. Consequently, the court denied both a full and partial discharge of his student loan obligations.

student loansundue hardshipbankruptcy dischargeChapter 7Brunner testfinancial difficultylegal careeremployment prospectsinternational relocationeducational debt
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 275 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