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. ADJ7479755
Regular
Feb 24, 2015

DAVID LOPEZ vs. PATTERSON LIFT TRUCKS, SPARTA INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant sought removal to vacate a finding that vocational expert reports lacked substantial evidence due to not observing the applicant's visible foot injury. The Board found no such prejudice or irreparable harm, deeming reconsideration an adequate remedy. The Board also noted a processing delay due to a file misplacement.

Petition for RemovalVocational Rehabilitation ExpertSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationDiscovery ClosureMandatory Settlement ConferenceLabor Code Section 5502(d)(3)Vocational ExpertsAMA Guides
References
12
Case No. ADJ394613 (VNO 0530712); ADJ2266356 (VNO 0530710)
Regular
Jun 25, 2015

MARIA ESTRELLA vs. DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES/NATIONAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal filed by a lien claimant. The lien claimant argued substantial prejudice due to the employer's non-attorney representative. However, the Board found that the non-attorney representative complied with relevant regulations, and the lien claimant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Therefore, removal was deemed an extraordinary remedy not warranted in this case, with reconsideration serving as an adequate remedy if necessary.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationRule 10773Non-Attorney RepresentativeHearing RepresentativeLien Claimant
References
2
Case No. ADJ7744557
Regular
Feb 06, 2017

THOMAS RICHARD GUTZWILLER vs. RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns a defendant's petition for removal to prevent a deposition of their claims examiner regarding medical treatment issues. The defendant argued substantial prejudice and irreparable harm due to expense, mootness, and impact on the examiner's time, also alleging bad faith discovery tactics. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied removal, emphasizing it is an extraordinary remedy. The Board found the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be inadequate.

Petition for RemovalDepositionMedical Treatment IssuesSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmMoot IssueBad Faith DiscoverySettlement DemandsWCJ ReportExtraordinary Remedy
References
2
Case No. PD-1485-10
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2011

State of Texas v. Wilson, Carolyn Sue Krizan

Carolyn Sue Krizan-Wilson was indicted for murder 23 years after her husband's death. She filed a motion to dismiss the indictment due to pre-indictment delay, which the trial court granted. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal. This Court granted her petition for discretionary review, arguing the delay caused substantial prejudice and was for an impermissible purpose. This Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding that while Krizan-Wilson suffered substantial prejudice, she failed to prove the delay was an intentional device for tactical advantage or other bad faith purposes. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Pre-indictment delayDue process violationFifth AmendmentTactical advantageBad faithSubstantial prejudiceStandard of reviewAbuse of discretionAppellate reviewCriminal procedure
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 1998

Weber v. Northberry Construction

Claimant, a surveyor, sustained two work-related knee and back injuries in 1986. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled he had a permanent partial disability and the carrier made a $5,000 overpayment. Claimant appealed, alleging prejudice from inability to cross-examine a private investigator who testified about videotaped surveillance but was unavailable for further testimony. The court found no undue prejudice given the substantial independent medical evidence from nine health care professionals, which the Board primarily relied upon. The Board's finding of permanent partial disability was affirmed, with the court noting that resolving conflicting medical testimony falls within the Board's purview if based on substantial evidence.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWork-Related InjuryMedical TestimonyOverpaymentCross-ExaminationPrivate InvestigatorVideotape EvidenceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Krizan-Wilson

Carolyn Sue Krizan-Wilson was indicted for murder nearly 23 years after her husband's death. She moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing prosecutorial delay violated her rights to due process, speedy trial, due course of law, fair trial, testify, present a defense, and effective representation, and that the indictment was barred by laches. The trial court granted the motion, dismissing the indictment. The State of Texas appealed this decision. The appellate court analyzed the due process claim under a two-prong test requiring both substantial prejudice and intentional delay for tactical advantage or bad faith. While acknowledging Krizan-Wilson suffered substantial prejudice due to the delay, including loss of witnesses, evidence, and her mental deterioration, the court found no evidence that the delay was intentional or for improper purposes. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order of dismissal, finding no merit in any of the grounds cited for dismissal and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Due ProcessProsecutorial DelayPre-indictment DelayRight to Fair TrialEffective Assistance of CounselLaches DoctrineConstitutional LawCriminal ProcedureMurder IndictmentDismissal of Charges
References
23
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
Showing 1-10 of 8,789 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