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. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2011

In re the Certification as Qualified Adoptive Parents Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 115-d

This case concerns Joanna K. and Scottye K.'s application to waive the mandatory certification as qualified adoptive parents for Jeremiah B., the biological son of Careese B. The K.s received physical custody of Jeremiah shortly after his birth in March 2009, prior to obtaining the required judicial certification, thereby violating New York's adoption statute. The court reviewed the convoluted history, including Careese B.'s judicial consent to adoption and the K.s' temporary custody order. However, the court denied the waiver application, emphasizing the critical importance of pre-placement certification to protect children and prevent unregulated transfers of custody. The decision stated that the petitioners failed to show good cause for waiver and that a retroactive approval of non-compliance would undermine legislative intent, although the K.s retain legal and physical custody pending the adoption petition.

Adoption Law CompliancePrivate-Placement Adoption RequirementsPre-Placement CertificationWaiver Application DenialChild Welfare LegislationFamily Law ProcedureJudicial DiscretionStatutory InterpretationParental Fitness StandardsCustody Transfer
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Skelaxin (metaxalone) Antitrust Litigation

This memorandum addresses two motions for class certification in a pharmaceutical antitrust case concerning the muscle relaxant Skelaxin. Plaintiffs, comprised of Indirect Purchasers and End Payors, alleged that defendants King Pharmaceuticals LLC and Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. colluded to delay the entry of a generic drug. The Court denied both class certification motions, finding the End Payors' proposed class not ascertainable due to the need for individualized contractual inquiries. For Indirect Purchasers, certification was denied primarily for failure to establish a proper choice-of-law for a nationwide class and inadequate support for state-specific subclasses. Additionally, End Payors' related motions for partial summary judgment and to strike expert testimony were denied without prejudice.

AntitrustClass ActionPharmaceuticalsSkelaxinMetaxaloneGeneric DrugClass CertificationIndirect PurchasersEnd PayorsChoice of Law
References
64
Case No. MDL 1358
Regular Panel Decision

Koch v. Hicks

This Opinion and Order addresses a motion for class certification within a Multi-District Litigation concerning groundwater contamination by methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from a gasoline station. Plaintiffs sought to certify two subclasses: a Homeowner Subclass and a Medical Monitoring Subclass, bringing claims under Maryland law for public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence, and strict liability. The court granted certification for the Homeowner Subclass, finding it satisfied all requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, and was maintainable under Rule 23(b)(1). However, the motion for certification of the Medical Monitoring Subclass was denied, with the court concluding that medical monitoring constitutes a form of damages under Maryland law rather than a distinct cause of action. The court also clarified that, in the context of class certification within MDL, the law of the transferor circuit (Fourth Circuit) applies over the transferee circuit (Second Circuit), following the Supreme Court's decision in Lexecon v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach.

Class ActionClass CertificationMulti-District LitigationRule 23MTBE ContaminationGroundwater ContaminationUnderground Storage TanksEnvironmental LawToxic TortHomeowner Subclass
References
46
Case No. 11-cv-7679, 11-cv-8249
Regular Panel Decision

Tiro v. Public House Investments, LLC

This case consolidates two actions brought by "tipped/front of house" and "non-tipped/back of house" employees against several New York City restaurants and individuals for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Plaintiffs moved for class certification of their state-law claims. District Judge Colleen McMahon granted the motion in part, certifying eight subclasses based on employment at specific restaurants (Public House, Butterfield, Wicker Park, Black Finn) within the two broader categories of tipped and non-tipped workers. The court appointed Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP as class counsel but directed the parties to submit new joint proposed class notices. Defendants are also ordered to disclose employee information for the subclasses.

Class certificationWage disputeFLSANYLLLabor lawRestaurant industryCollective actionTipped employeesNon-tipped employeesEmployer liability
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meyers v. Crouse Health System, Inc.

Named plaintiff Marianne Meyers brought this action against Crouse Health Hospital, Inc. and other entities, alleging violations of FLSA, ERISA, and NYLL regarding uncompensated work time, specifically concerning automatic meal break deductions and other pay policies. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss eight opt-in plaintiffs from the FLSA collective action, while plaintiff moved to certify NYLL and ERISA claims as a class action. The court granted defendants' motion, dismissing seven opt-in plaintiffs who admitted they did not work through meal breaks without compensation, finding them outside the conditionally certified FLSA class. The court also granted class certification for Subclass I (Meal Break Deduction Class) under Rule 23(b)(3) but denied certification for Subclass II (Pre and Postliminary Work Class) due to a lack of numerosity, and for Subclass IV (ERISA Class) due to insufficient evidence. Thomas & Solomon LLP was appointed as class counsel for Subclass I, and the matter was referred back to Magistrate Judge David Peebles for further pretrial proceedings, with the court also affirming the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the NYLL claims.

FLSA Collective ActionERISA Class ActionNYLL Wage and HourClass CertificationMeal Break DeductionsUncompensated WorkSummary Judgment GrantedSupplemental JurisdictionRule 23 PrerequisitesNumerosity Challenge
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2011

Hamelin v. Faxton-St. Luke's Healthcare

Plaintiffs Dawn Hamelin, Rakiesha Griffin, and Julie Flint brought a collective action against Faxton-St. Luke’s Healthcare and other entities, alleging violations of the FLSA, ERISA, and NYLL related to uncompensated meal breaks and pre/post-shift work. The court granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing eight opt-in plaintiffs who did not claim to have worked through meal breaks without compensation. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted for Subclass I, the 'Meal Break Deduction Class,' finding that common questions predominated and a class action was the superior method. However, certification was denied for Subclass II (pre/post-shift work) due to lack of commonality predominance and Subclass IV (ERISA claims) due to insufficient evidence. The court also appointed Thomas & Solomon LLP as class counsel.

Fair Labor Standards ActEmployee Retirement Income Security ActNew York Labor LawClass ActionCollective ActionMeal Break DeductionsUnpaid WagesSummary JudgmentClass CertificationRule 23
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greene v. Southland Corp.

Plaintiff Jacquelyn Greene, a black female, filed a class action lawsuit against The Southland Corporation, alleging employment discrimination based on race and sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal statutes. She also included claims under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Texas Workmen's Compensation Act. Greene sought to represent a nationwide class of black and/or female employees affected by Southland's discriminatory practices. The court, presided over by Judge Robert M. Hill, considered the motion for class certification. While acknowledging statistical evidence of discrimination in Southland's District No. 1603, the court determined that Greene could not adequately represent both blacks and females due to potential conflicts of interest between these groups. The court deferred a final decision on class certification, requiring Greene to designate which subclass (blacks or females) she wished to represent, with an opportunity for an intervenor to represent the undesignated subclass. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied.

Employment DiscriminationClass ActionTitle VIIRace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationRehabilitation ActWorkers' Compensation ActAdequacy of RepresentationConflict of InterestSubclasses
References
19
Case No. M2004-00647-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2005

Yvonne N. Robertson v. Tennessee Board of Social Worker Certification and Licensure

The Tennessee Board of Social Worker Certification and Licensure appealed a Chancery Court decision that had set aside the Board's two-year license revocation of Yvonne N. Robertson. Robertson, a licensed clinical social worker, had her license revoked for engaging in a prohibited 'dual relationship' with a client. The Chancery Court ruled that the Board's sanctions were an abuse of discretion and arbitrary, partly due to the Board's consideration of Robertson's 1982 felony forgery conviction. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the Chancery Court's decision, determining that the Board was authorized to review its prior records and that the imposed sanction was both warranted in law and justified in fact. Consequently, the Board's original order of revocation was reinstated.

Social Worker CertificationLicense RevocationDual RelationshipUnethical ConductAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStandard of ReviewProfessional EthicsAppellate Court DecisionTennessee Law
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2007

Kudinov v. Kel-Tech Construction Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order that partially granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing that the burden of establishing class certification criteria rests with the party seeking it, and the class certification statute should be liberally construed. Despite inconsistencies in the class representative's testimony and variations in damages among different trades, the court found sufficient evidence for numerosity and commonality of claims. The decision reiterates that the inquiry into a claim's merit for class certification is limited and not a substitute for summary judgment or trial.

Class ActionClass CertificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionEvidentiary BasisNumerosityCommonalityWage DisputesUnderpayment
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 669 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