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

Rosenblatt v. United Way of Greater Houston

Stanley Rosenblatt, a long-time employee of the Jewish Community Center, participated in United Way of Greater Houston's defined benefit pension plan. In 1995, United Way converted this to a cash balance plan (CB Plan) due to a significant funding deficit, later adding a "wear-away" provision and freezing accruals. Rosenblatt alleged age discrimination with the EEOC, claiming the CB Plan adversely affected older employees by reducing benefit accruals and miscalculating benefits. United Way filed motions to dismiss, arguing that Rosenblatt failed to state a claim under ERISA and ADEA, citing circuit court precedents upholding cash balance plans as non-discriminatory. The Court sided with United Way, concluding that Rosenblatt's claims regarding benefit accruals, notice requirements, minimum participation standards, and breach of fiduciary duty lacked sufficient factual basis under ERISA and ADEA. Consequently, the defendants' motions to dismiss were granted, and the case was dismissed.

Age DiscriminationERISAADEACash Balance PlanDefined Benefit PlanPension PlanMotion to DismissBenefit AccrualFiduciary DutyStatutory Interpretation
References
26
Case No. 13-10-00247-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2010

Unit Texas Drilling, LLC, Unit Drilling Company and Cliff Welker v. Caesar Morales, Jr. and Rhonda Morales

This memorandum opinion from the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals addresses an appeal by Unit Texas Drilling, LLC, Unit Drilling Company, and Cliff Welker. They sought to reverse a trial court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration in a personal injury suit filed by Caesar Morales, Jr. and Rhonda Morales. The Moraleses' claims arose from Caesar's on-the-job injury while working for Unit Texas, a non-subscriber to the Texas Workers Compensation Act, and concerned a mandatory 'Occupational Injury Benefit Plan' with an arbitration clause. The appellate court found that the Federal Arbitration Act applied, the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, and rejected the appellees' defenses, including arguments related to the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Texas Labor Code provisions, unconscionability, and failure of consideration. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActTexas Workers Compensation ActNon-subscriber EmployerMotion to Compel ArbitrationUnconscionability DefenseMcCarran-Ferguson ActIllusory PromiseContractual DisputesEmployment Law
References
46
Case No. 1:96-CV-337
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 1998

Saint Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. United States

Seaman Christopher Gray sustained injuries at the Chickamauga Lock and Dam. Serodino, Inc., Gray's employer, and its insurer, Saint Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, initiated a lawsuit against the United States of America and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, seeking contribution or indemnity related to Gray's injuries. The plaintiffs asserted admiralty jurisdiction over their claims. The United States filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, contending that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the administrative filing requirement of the Admiralty Extension Act and that Gray's underlying admiralty claim against Serodino did not confer admiralty jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims against the United States. Consequently, the court granted the United States's Motion for Summary Judgment, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Admiralty jurisdictionSovereign immunitySuits in Admiralty ActAdmiralty Extension ActContributionIndemnificationSummary judgmentJones ActMaritime lawNavigable waters
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1985

United States v. $100 in United States Currency

The United States initiated an in rem forfeiture action against $100,000 in U.S. currency, alleging it originated from illegal drug transactions. Claimants Jose Martinez-Torres and Nancy Medina asserted the funds were legitimate lottery winnings. The government sought summary judgment, arguing issue preclusion from a prior Nebbia bail hearing where Medina's lottery claim was found incredible. The Court granted partial summary judgment for the government, establishing probable cause for forfeiture. However, it denied the application of offensive collateral estoppel for full summary judgment, citing the distinct procedural environment and limited scope of the Nebbia hearing, and ruled that claimants are entitled to a plenary trial to prove the legitimate source of the funds.

ForfeitureDrug Trafficking ProceedsCollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionSummary JudgmentProbable CauseIn Rem ForfeitureBail HearingDue Process ConcernsPuerto Rican Lottery
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olveda v. United States

Plaintiff Mr. Olveda filed a Federal Tort Claim Action against the United States after being exposed to plutonium while employed by Dow Chemical Company, an independent contractor managing the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado. The United States moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity as a 'statutory employer' under Colorado law. The court found that under Colorado Revised Statute § 8-48-101, the United States, by ensuring workmen's compensation insurance for Dow's employees (as an allowable cost under its contract with Dow), qualified as a statutory employer. This status grants immunity from common law tort suits. Citing various Colorado and federal precedents, the court affirmed that the 'statutory employer' doctrine applies to the United States in the same manner as a private individual. Therefore, Mr. Olveda is limited to his workmen's compensation claim, and the court granted summary judgment to the United States.

Federal Tort Claims ActStatutory EmployerWorkers' CompensationRadiation ExposurePlutonium ContaminationSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityIndependent ContractorColorado Law
References
22
Case No. H-05-758
Regular Panel Decision

Humphrey v. United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast

This class action, filed by Ann W. Humphrey against United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast, concerns the unlawful reduction of pension benefits under ERISA. The court addressed Defendants' Rule 59 motion to alter or amend judgment, which was denied. Plaintiff's Rule 54 motion for common-fund costs and fees was also denied due to concerns about double recovery and ERISA's anti-alienation provision. However, the court granted in part Plaintiff's motion for additional attorneys' fees and costs under ERISA § 502(g), awarding $277,667.06 in fees and $1,715.33 in costs after adjustments. The Plaintiff's request for a $10,000 incentive award was denied due to insufficient justification.

ERISAPension BenefitsClass ActionAttorneys FeesCosts AwardRule 59 MotionRule 54 MotionAnti-Alienation ProvisionLodestar MethodCommon Fund Doctrine
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Totten v. United States

This is a wrongful death action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The plaintiff's husband, an Aerojet employee, died in a rocket propellant fire during a post-accident clean-up operation at the United States Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center. The United States moved for summary judgment, contending it could not be held liable for the negligence of its independent contractor Aerojet and that it was protected by the discretionary function exception of 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). The Court determined that Air Force personnel, who approved a clean-up plan with a deficient hazard analysis, were performing a discretionary function. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Dalehite and Varig Airlines, the Court ruled that Section 2680(a) protects the United States from liability even if negligence could be proved. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

Wrongful DeathFederal Tort Claims ActDiscretionary Function ExceptionSummary JudgmentGovernment LiabilityIndependent ContractorMilitary StandardsHazard AnalysisRocket Propellant FireTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Humphrey v. United Way of Texas Gulf Coast

This ERISA case involves cross-motions for summary judgment regarding the calculation of early retirement pension (ERP) benefits under a cash balance plan. Plaintiff Ann W. Humphrey, beneficiary of Fredrick B. Blackmer, disputes the "greater of" methodology used by United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast Cash Balance Plan, advocating for the "plus" methodology detailed in earlier plan documents. The court grants the Plaintiff's motion, finding the plan administrator abused its discretion by using an interpretation that directly conflicts with the plain language of the 96 Plan, particularly Section 6.5. The court rejects the defendant's arguments regarding the Summary Plan Description's control, the lack of abuse of discretion, and the "scrivener's error" defense. The final order declares that ERP benefits must be calculated by adding the benefits from the Prior Plan and the 96 Plan and orders defendants to recompute benefits accordingly.

ERISAPension BenefitsEarly Retirement PensionCash Balance PlanDefined Benefit PlanSummary JudgmentAbuse of DiscretionPlan InterpretationScrivener's ErrorClass Action
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Blasio v. United States

This action was brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act by Jean and Clifton DeBlasio against the United States for personal injuries sustained by Jean at the Gateway Sports Center. The plaintiffs alleged negligence due to protruding cement nodules on a sidewalk. The United States moved for summary judgment, asserting it could not be sued for the acts or omissions of its independent contractors. The court found that Shields and Dean Concessions, Inc., which operated the Sports Center, was an independent contractor and that the government lacked day-to-day supervisory control. Consequently, the Federal Tort Claims Act did not apply, and the motion for summary judgment was granted, finding the United States immune from suit.

Federal Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryNegligenceGovernment LiabilityConcessionaireNational Park ServiceControl Test
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Petrenko v. United States

Plaintiff John Petrenko filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the United States, alleging civil rights violations including negligent beating, false arrest, and false imprisonment stemming from a 1988 incident with United States Park Police officers. Petrenko sought $10 million in damages. The Government moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court ruled that the United States is immune from § 1983 suits and that prior state court findings of probable cause precluded the false arrest and imprisonment claims. Petrenko's negligent beating claim was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, and his state claim for vehicle impoundment costs was also dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as adequate state remedies exist.

42 U.S.C. § 1983Civil Rights ViolationFalse ArrestFalse ImprisonmentNegligent BeatingSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityCollateral EstoppelProbable CauseFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 2,112 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