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

Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed by former employees (Plaintiffs) against James W. Giddens, as SIPA Trustee for MF Global Inc., and Louis J. Freeh, as Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., MF Global Finance USA, Inc., and MF Global Holdings USA, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the federal WARN Act and the New York WARN Act due to employment termination without sufficient notice. The Court granted the SIPA Trustee's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding the "liquidating fiduciary" principle applicable to MFGI as its statutory purpose was liquidation. However, the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice and with leave to amend, as the factual record did not conclusively establish that the Chapter 11 Debtors were solely liquidating at the time of layoffs, and the complaint was otherwise deficient. Claims for vacation pay and unpaid wages were dismissed without prejudice to be handled in the claims allowance process.

WARN ActNew York WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffsPlant ClosingsBankruptcy ProceedingsCorporate LiquidationChapter 11 ReorganizationSIPA TrusteeLiquidating Fiduciary Principle
References
26
Case No. G-01-CV-670
Regular Panel Decision

Kimmel Ex Rel. Estate of Kimmel v. TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY

This order addresses multiple lawsuits stemming from the tragic 1999 Texas A&M Bonfire collapse, which resulted in twelve deaths and twenty-seven injuries. Plaintiffs alleged that Texas A&M University and various officials violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by depriving victims of substantive due process through deliberate indifference to a state-created danger, and also pursued state law negligence claims. The Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the federal claims, ruling that the University was shielded by Eleventh Amendment immunity. It further found that the University Officials' actions, while possibly negligent, did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference required for a constitutional violation, dismissing these federal claims with prejudice. Finally, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law negligence claims, dismissing them without prejudice for resolution in state court.

Bonfire collapseTexas A&M University42 U.S.C. 1983Substantive Due ProcessState Created DangerEleventh Amendment ImmunityQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentFederal Law ClaimsState Law Claims
References
48
Case No. 11 CIV. 0377(CM)
Regular Panel Decision

Pippins v. KPMG LLP

This case concerns a decision granting Defendant KPMG LLP's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims with prejudice and their New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs, current and former Audit Associates at KPMG, alleged that KPMG violated overtime pay requirements by classifying them as exempt. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, determined that Audit Associates qualify as "learned professionals" under the FLSA exemption. This conclusion was based on their specialized academic training, customary CPA-eligibility, and the requirement for them to exercise discretion and judgment in performing audit procedures, despite some routine tasks and supervision. The court rejected Plaintiffs' arguments that their work was purely rote and found their duties essential to the accounting profession, thus exempting them from FLSA overtime requirements.

FLSANew York Labor LawLearned Professional ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionAudit AssociatesKPMGOvertime PaySummary JudgmentAccounting StandardsCPA Eligibility
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hyde v. North River Insurance

This case examines whether an insurance carrier, having paid no-fault benefits, can assert a lien against a judgment recovered by its insured for pain, suffering, and future economic loss. The plaintiff, an injured insured, received $50,000 in no-fault benefits from North River Insurance Company. In a subsequent tort action against the County of Rensselaer, the plaintiff secured a $1,000,000 verdict. The insurance company filed a lien against this judgment. The Special Term and appellate courts affirmed that the lien was invalid because the jury's verdict explicitly excluded basic economic loss, thereby preventing a double recovery. The decision clarifies that liens are only enforceable against recoveries that duplicate previously paid basic economic losses.

No-Fault BenefitsInsurance LienSummary Judgment AppealPersonal Injury CompensationBasic Economic LossNon-Economic LossPain and Suffering DamagesDouble Recovery PreventionStatutory LienAutomobile Accident
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Normile v. Allstate Insurance

Chief Judge Cooke's dissenting opinion critiques the majority's interpretation of Insurance Law section 671 (subd 2, par [b]) regarding how collateral source payments affect an insurer's aggregate $50,000 liability for basic economic loss. The dissent argues that the majority's method, which allows insurers to reduce their total liability by these payments, leads to an incomplete recovery for injured parties, particularly when total losses exceed $50,000. Cooke proposes an alternative allocation where collateral source payments are first applied to cover losses beyond the $50,000 basic economic loss threshold. This approach, he contends, ensures that insurers pay the full $50,000 in first-party benefits and only take credit for collateral sources that would otherwise result in a double recovery within the basic economic loss limit, or for amounts exceeding the $50,000 threshold. The dissenting judge asserts that the Legislature did not intend to create such an inequity, where injured individuals are left with less than full compensation while insurers avoid their primary obligation.

Insurance Law InterpretationBasic Economic LossCollateral Source PaymentsNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security Disability BenefitsDissenting OpinionAggregate LiabilityFirst-Party BenefitsDouble Recovery
References
2
Case No. 2015-01-0443
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2016

Orr, Timothy v. Renfroe Corp.

Timothy Orr, the employee, filed a claim that came before Judge Thomas Wyatt for a Show Cause Hearing. Mr. Orr stated he had returned to work for the employer, Renfroe Corporation, and that the dispute over medical bills was resolved by his private health insurance. He wished to dismiss his claim with prejudice and confirmed his understanding of the implications. The Court granted his request, dismissing the claim with prejudice and taxing the $150 filing fee to Renfroe Corporation and/or Sentry Ins. Co., its workers' compensation carrier.

Dismissal with PrejudiceShow Cause HearingMedical Bills DisputePrivate Health InsuranceFiling FeeWorkers' Compensation ClaimsEmployee RepresentationEmployer RepresentationCarrier ResponsibilityAppeal Rights
References
1
Case No. G-01-CV-670
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2002

Breen v. TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY

This case addresses the aftermath of the 1999 Texas A&M Bonfire collapse, which resulted in numerous student deaths and injuries. Plaintiffs filed six lawsuits, alleging that the University and its officials violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process by acting with deliberate indifference to a state-created danger under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and also brought state law negligence claims. The Court granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the federal claims, finding the University immune under the Eleventh Amendment and the officials not liable due to a lack of "deliberate indifference." Subsequently, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice for resolution in state court.

Bonfire collapseTexas A&M University42 U.S.C. § 1983Eleventh Amendment immunityState-created dangerSubstantive due processDeliberate indifferenceSummary judgmentSupplemental jurisdictionState law claims
References
50
Case No. 2023-06-7650
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2025

Salmon, Marsha v. Octapharma Plasma

The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims at Nashville granted Octapharma Plasma's motion to dismiss with prejudice against Marsha Salmon. Ms. Salmon, the employee, failed to comply with multiple court orders, including providing responses to written discovery and identifying medical experts by the set deadlines. She also neglected to file a written response to the dispositive motion, despite explicit warnings from the Court. Citing Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02(1) and (3) for failure to prosecute and to comply with court orders, the Court deemed Ms. Salmon's efforts to advance her case insufficient and dismissed the claim with prejudice to its refiling.

Motion to DismissFailure to ProsecuteCompliance with Court OrdersWritten DiscoveryMedical ExpertsImpairment RatingProcedural HistoryWorkers' Compensation ClaimsTennessee LawDismissal with Prejudice
References
2
Case No. 2020-03-0245
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2020

Adkisson, Greg v. G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc.

This document is an Agreed Compensation Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice, concerning the case of Greg Adkisson (Employee) against G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc. (Employer). The parties reached this agreement during a telephonic mediation with Specialist Nina Harris on September 17, 2020. The Employee's claims for alleged occupational exposure illnesses and/or injuries, stemming from his work as a heavy equipment operator, are dismissed without prejudice. This allows him to re-file his workers' compensation claim in the future if he becomes partially or totally incapacitated due to an occupational illness, provided it is medically proven to be more than 50% related to his employment, as per T.C.A § 50-6-102(14) and T.C.A. § 50-6-303(a). The Court ordered G.UB.MK to pay a $150.00 filing fee and submit an SD-1 form.

Occupational IllnessHeavy EquipmentSettlement AgreementDismissalTelephonic MediationThird-Party ClaimFuture ClaimsWorkers' CompensationTennessee Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rogers v. Morales

Plaintiff Sadie A. Rogers filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking to declare the Texas Workers Compensation Law unconstitutional and claiming compensatory and punitive damages. Defendants, Texas Attorney General Dan Morales and Texas Workers Compensation Commission Executive Director Todd K. Brown, moved to dismiss. The court dismissed the claims for compensatory and punitive damages against the defendants in their official capacities with prejudice, citing Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The court further dismissed the claim challenging the constitutionality of the Texas Workers Compensation Act without prejudice, invoking the abstention doctrine to allow Texas state courts to interpret their own comprehensive workers' compensation statute, particularly concerning medically recognized diagnoses not listed in evaluation guides.

Eleventh AmendmentSovereign ImmunityAbstention DoctrineCivil Rights Act42 U.S.C. § 1983Workers' Compensation LawConstitutional LawFederal CourtDismissalState Statutes
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 3,800 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