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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schaffer v. Benefit Plan of Exxon Corp.

Plaintiffs Phillip W. Schaffer and David W. Stiefel, former employees of Exxon, filed a lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) after being denied disability benefits by the Benefit Plan of Exxon Corporation. Both plaintiffs sustained on-the-job elbow injuries. Defendant Exxon moved for summary judgment, asserting that the Plan Administrator's denial of benefits was justified by substantial evidence, indicating that the plaintiffs were either not incapacitated or did not adhere to prescribed treatment plans. The Court applied an abuse of discretion standard of review and determined that the Plan Administrator's decisions were indeed supported by adequate evidence. Therefore, the Court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, denied the Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment, and dismissed their claims with prejudice.

ERISADisability BenefitsSummary JudgmentAbuse of Discretion StandardEmployee Benefit PlanPlan AdministratorMedical EvaluationWork-Hardening ProgramDenial of BenefitsJudicial Review
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2015

Nance v. Crockett County

Jerry A. Nance sued Crockett County, Tennessee, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging unpaid overtime and compensatory time. Both Nance and the County filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment. The court denied the County's motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding willfulness of the alleged FLSA violations and Nance's eligibility for the 480-hour compensatory time limit due to his emergency response duties. The court also denied Nance's motion for summary judgment on overtime liability and liquidated damages, citing factual disputes over the actual overtime hours worked and the accuracy of his records. Consequently, both parties' motions for partial summary judgment were denied, and the case will proceed to trial.

FLSAOvertimeCompensatory TimeSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsWillfulnessEmergency ServicesPublic EmploymentWage and HourEmployment Law
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. ITT STANDARD

Paul Smith, Jr., a former employee of ITT Standard, filed a complaint alleging wrongful discharge against ITT and a violation of the duty of fair representation against his union, United Steel Workers of America Local No. 897, AFL-CIO. Both defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court granted the Union's motion regarding the bad faith claim but denied it concerning the arbitrary conduct claim. ITT's motion for summary judgment regarding the wrongful discharge claim was also denied, meaning that triable issues of fact remain for trial concerning the arbitrary nature of the union's representation and ITT's alleged improper discharge. The case hinges on whether Smith's conduct constituted insubordination under shop rules and if the 'last chance agreement' precluded arbitration.

Workers' RightsWrongful DischargeDuty of Fair RepresentationSummary JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementInsubordinationLast Chance AgreementShop RulesLabor LawFederal Court
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

XL Specialty Insurance v. Kiewit Offshore Services, Ltd.

This memorandum opinion addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in a case originating from an explosion that killed two workers, one each from Kiewit Offshore Services, LTD (general contractor) and R.B.T. Welders, Inc. (subcontractor). Relatives of the deceased workers filed a negligence lawsuit. XL Specialty Insurance Company, RBT's insurer, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Kiewit, denying a duty to defend or indemnify. Kiewit, in turn, sought indemnification from RBT and coverage from XL. The Court granted Kiewit's motion for summary judgment in part, holding RBT must indemnify Kiewit for a $4 million settlement payment, specific attorney's fees, and prejudgment interest, finding Kiewit faced potential liability and the settlement was reasonable. The Court denied Kiewit's claim for undocumented expenses and denied XL's motion for summary judgment asserting statutory employer and borrowed servant defenses under workers' compensation laws for Kiewit, concluding these defenses were not applicable.

Summary JudgmentIndemnificationWorkers' CompensationInsurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentEmployer LiabilityContractual IndemnityBorrowed Servant DoctrineStatutory EmployerNegligence
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hopkins v. Cornerstone America

This case involves former insurance agents, led by Joseph Hopkins, suing Cornerstone America, Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of Tennessee, and United Insurance Companies, Incorporated, for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), breach of contract, and common-law fraud and conversion. The central issue is whether the plaintiffs were employees or independent contractors under the FLSA. The Court found that most plaintiffs, except Chris Fox, were employees based on an economic reality test, considering factors like degree of control, relative investment, opportunity for profit and loss, skill and initiative, and permanency of the relationship. Consequently, the court partially granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and partially granted and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. It dismissed Chris Fox's FLSA claims due to judicial estoppel and dismissed all claims against United Insurance and the plaintiffs' abandoned fraud and conversion claims.

Fair Labor Standards ActEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorOvertime WagesRetaliationBreach of ContractJudicial EstoppelEconomic Reality TestCorporate VeilPublic Policy Violation
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maher v. ALLIANCE MORTGAGE BANKING CORP.

Plaintiff Jessica Maher commenced an employment discrimination action against Alliance Mortgage Banking Corporation and Raymond Agoglia, asserting claims of hostile work environment, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and assault under Title VII, NYSHRL, and New York common law. Defendant Agoglia moved for summary judgment on all claims. The Court granted summary judgment on Maher's Title VII claims, her NYSHRL retaliation claim, and her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. However, the Court denied summary judgment on her NYSHRL hostile work environment claim and her common law assault claim, allowing these to proceed. The decision analyzes the legal standards for summary judgment and specific elements of each claim, particularly concerning individual liability under NYSHRL and the statute of limitations for the assault claim.

Employment LawSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation ClaimIntentional TortsAssaultSummary Judgment MotionTitle VII ClaimsNYSHRL ClaimsSupervisor Liability
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parrish v. Premier Directional Drilling, L.P.

This case involves a collective-action lawsuit filed by William Parrish and other plaintiffs against Premier Directional Drilling, L.P., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) due to misclassification as independent contractors rather than employees. The core issue was whether the plaintiffs, who worked as Directional Drillers Consultants (DDs) and Measurement While Drilling Consultants (MWDs), were employees or independent contractors under the FLSA's economic reality test. The Court analyzed five factors: degree of control, relative investments, opportunity for profit and loss, skill and initiative, and permanency of the relationship. Ultimately, the Court found that the plaintiffs were employees, concluding that Premier exerted significant control over their work and compensation, and their investments in the job were substantially less than Premier's. Consequently, the Court denied Premier's motion for summary judgment, granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and awarded the plaintiffs $363,422.00 in compensatory and liquidated damages.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Employment MisclassificationIndependent Contractor StatusEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentOvertime CompensationBack WagesLiquidated DamagesEconomic Reality TestOil and Gas Industry
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hannah v. American Republic Insurance

Phil Hannah filed an action against American Republic Insurance Company (ARIC), alleging interference with his ERISA rights under 29 U.S.C. § 1140 due to employment termination, and wrongful denial of benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Hannah’s employment with Americare, an ARIC subsidiary, was terminated in August 2004, after which he signed a Separation Agreement and Release. The Court granted ARIC’s motion for summary judgment on the ERISA § 510 claim, finding the Release valid and rejecting Hannah’s argument of economic duress. For the ERISA § 502 claim, the Court also ruled in favor of ARIC, determining that Hannah failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Plan, and found his futility and waiver arguments to be without merit. Consequently, the Court granted ARIC’s motion for entry of judgment on the benefits claim, denied Hannah’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the entire case with judgment entered in favor of the Defendant.

ERISASummary JudgmentEmployee Benefits PlanWrongful TerminationAdministrative RemediesEconomic DuressRelease AgreementWaiver of ClaimsFutility DoctrineDeferred Compensation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hashop v. Rockwell Space Operations Co.

This case involves a dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) where four plaintiffs, NSS Instructors for Rockwell Space Operations Company (RSOC), claimed uncompensated overtime. Plaintiff Hashop also alleged retaliatory discharge. The Court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs' FLSA claims were not time-barred, treating them as a continuing violation. The Court determined that the NSS Instructors, despite their extensive in-house training, did not meet the "professional" exemption criteria under FLSA due to a lack of consistent discretion and judgment in their duties, thus granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on this issue. However, the Court granted summary judgment to RSOC on Hashop's retaliatory discharge claim, concluding that he failed to prove his termination was "but for" his complaints about overtime, as his actions (secretly tape-recording a supervisor) provided sufficient non-discriminatory grounds for dismissal.

FLSASummary JudgmentProfessional ExemptionOvertime CompensationRetaliatory DischargeStatute of LimitationsContinuing ViolationEmployee ClassificationFair Labor Standards ActFederal Court
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 18,314 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