Howell Cobb

This case involves plaintiff Elam seeking judicial review of the Social Security Administration's denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits, claiming disability due to back pain, a bulging disc, high blood pressure, knee pain, and shoulder pain. The administrative law judge found that Elam's impairments were severe but did not meet listed criteria, that he retained residual functional capacity for a limited range of light work, and that alternative jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy, so he was not disabled. The magistrate judge recommended affirming the Commissioner's decision after reviewing the record for proper legal standards and substantial evidence. The district court conducted a de novo review of the plaintiff's objections, concluded they lacked merit, overruled them, adopted the magistrate's report, and dismissed the case.

labor & employmentfederal power

The case involved a passenger, Kimberly Williams, suing Amtrak for injuries to her knee caused by a falling tray table on a train, initially claiming inadequate maintenance and later adding negligence claims alleging that the tray tables were too heavy, defective, and failed to meet various safety codes. Amtrak moved to dismiss the new claims on grounds of preemption by the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA). The court granted the motion and dismissed the claims with prejudice, reasoning that federal regulations under 49 C.F.R. § 238.233(e) and related authority cover the subject matter of passenger car interior safety features, including a deliberate policy choice not to impose padding requirements on pre-2000 cars for cost reasons, which precludes additional state-law negligence claims; the locality exception to preemption did not apply because any design defect would not be limited to a specific area.

torts & liabilityfederal power

This case involves a plaintiff's challenge to the Social Security Administration Commissioner's denial of disability benefits, where an ALJ determined that the plaintiff, despite severe impairments from a heart transplant, retained the residual functional capacity for light work and could perform her past job as an accounting clerk. The plaintiff argued that the ALJ improperly disregarded unanimous opinions from treating physicians indicating she could no longer work, particularly due to expected excessive absenteeism that a vocational expert testified would prevent maintaining employment. The magistrate judge's report, adopted by the district court, found that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the treating physicians' opinions on the plaintiff's ability to engage in sustained work on a regular and continuing basis, as required under Social Security regulations. The court therefore remanded the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings.

labor & employment

The case involved plaintiff Yolanda Bobo, an uninsured patient, suing Christus Health in Texas state court over alleged unreasonable and inflated charges for medical care at its nonprofit facilities, asserting claims based on the hospital's tax-exempt status under federal and state agreements. Christus removed the action to federal district court under federal question jurisdiction, prompting Bobo's motion to remand on grounds that the complaint raised only state-law issues. The court denied remand, reasoning that the well-pleaded complaint's causes of action substantially depended on interpreting Christus's obligations under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) and related federal tax exemptions, satisfying the test for embedded federal questions despite the state-law framing.

federal powertaxeshealthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a plaintiff's challenge to the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of disability benefits, over which the district court had jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). After the court reversed the denial and remanded the matter for rehearing under sentence four of that statute, the plaintiff applied for attorney's fees, costs, and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The magistrate judge recommended granting the unopposed application for $4,572.32, finding that the plaintiff was a prevailing party, the requested hours and rate were reasonable, and the government had not shown its position was substantially justified or that special circumstances existed. The district court adopted the report and recommendation in full, ordering the award to be paid.

federal powerprocedurehealthcare

The case involves plaintiffs Spill Textile Corp. and Complete Environmental Products suing Spilltech Environmental and New Pig in Texas state court for business torts including misappropriation of trade secrets and tortious interference with contract, as well as breach of contract, and later adding two individual Texas-resident defendants. Defendants removed the case to federal district court asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but plaintiffs moved to remand on grounds that complete diversity was lacking. The court granted the motion to remand, holding that the individual defendants were not fraudulently joined because the pleadings alleged facts that could support liability on the trade secrets claim under applicable state law standards. As a result, the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the case was returned to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a former city secretary who sued her employer, the City of Hemphill, Texas, under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging she suffered gender-based harassment from her supervisor, was passed over for promotion to city manager in favor of a male candidate, and was constructively discharged. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing the failure-to-hire and constructive-discharge claims, while denying summary judgment on the hostile-work-environment claim. On the hiring claim, the court found no direct evidence of discrimination and insufficient indirect evidence to establish a prima facie case or pretext. The constructive-discharge claim failed because the plaintiff had not shown that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign, particularly given her consideration of another job offer and the supervisor's retirement. The hostile-work-environment claim survived because evidence of the supervisor's gender-based conduct raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether it affected a term or condition of employment.

civil rightslabor & employment

In Scott v. Steinhagen Oil Co., Inc., plaintiff Arthur Scott sued his employer and its human resources director, alleging interference with and retaliation for exercising rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing the complaint failed to state viable claims. The court denied the motions, holding that the well-pleaded allegations, accepted as true at this stage, were sufficient to state claims for relief and that the defendants' affidavits and factual challenges could not be considered without converting the motions to ones for summary judgment, which was premature given the limited discovery. The court noted several factual disputes, such as the employer's successor status and whether the plaintiff had a qualifying serious health condition, that would require further development.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

In Threadgill v. Cingular Wireless, L.L.C., a customer sued the wireless provider in Texas state court alleging breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act based on representations that in-state calls would be billed at local rates when they were actually charged roaming rates due to routing through out-of-state cells. Cingular removed the case to federal court, arguing that the Federal Communications Act completely preempted the state-law claims or that they arose under federal common law. The district court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that the claims concerned contractual misrepresentations and billing practices rather than the reasonableness of rates, so the FCA's enforcement provisions did not create a parallel federal cause of action that would support complete preemption or federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In this case, Sandra Kelley sued Wal-Mart in federal court after slipping and falling at a store, and Wal-Mart filed a third-party complaint against Enviro-Kleen Enterprises seeking contribution and indemnity. Enviro-Kleen moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims were barred by Texas's two-year statute of limitations and by Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.004(d) because the third-party complaint was filed more than 30 days after Wal-Mart's answer. The court denied the motion to dismiss. It reasoned that under Texas law, claims for contribution and indemnity do not accrue until the plaintiff recovers damages or settles, and that § 33.004(d) is merely a joinder provision that does not bar such claims; instead, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a) governs the joinder here without conflicting with substantive Texas law.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit filed by plaintiff Walter Conway against defendant Lenzing Aktiengesellschaft, a German corporation, after an accident at a Houston-area facility where Conway operated a machine manufactured by the defendant. The suit was brought in the Eastern District of Texas under diversity jurisdiction. The defendant moved to transfer venue to the Southern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), arguing for greater convenience. The court granted the transfer, reasoning that the plaintiff's chosen forum had no factual connection to the case, none of the parties or key witnesses resided there, and factors of litigant convenience and judicial efficiency strongly favored the Houston division where the accident occurred and all relevant parties were located.

proceduretorts & liability

In Kokes v. Angelina College, plaintiff Ronald Kokes, a 65-year-old white male, sued Angelina Junior College after it declined to hire him for a psychology instructor position, alleging violations of the Texas Labor Code and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 based on race, sex, and age discrimination, along with a later-added common law fraud claim. The case was removed to federal court, and after discovery the college moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion on the federal claim, finding no genuine issue of material fact that the college's stated reasons for selecting another candidate—Benetha Jackson—were a pretext for discrimination, as the college followed its normal hiring practices and the evidence did not show Kokes was clearly superior in a manner indicating unlawful bias. The court dismissed the § 1981 claim with prejudice and remanded the remaining state-law claims to Texas state court.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved an employment dispute in which plaintiff James Ehrhardt sued his former employer, Electrical & Instrumentation Unlimited (EIU), after being terminated nine days into his job as a general foreman. EIU fired Ehrhardt for failing to disclose on his application a recent prior employer where a sexual harassment claim had been filed against him, and Ehrhardt brought claims for breach of contract, defamation, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted EIU's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice. It reasoned that Texas is an at-will employment state with no evidence of a contract limiting termination, that EIU's statements about the firing were not defamatory, that no false representation supported the fraud claim, and that EIU's conduct was not extreme and outrageous enough to support an IIED claim.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

This case involved plaintiffs who had settled a product liability suit against Ford Motor Company for injuries from a 1991 Bronco rollover accident, seeking additional damages years later on claims of fraud, civil conspiracy, and related theories. The plaintiffs alleged that Ford had paid an engineer, David Bickerstaff, to alter his testimony about the vehicle's stability issues and concealed the arrangement, leading to an undervalued settlement. The court granted Ford's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs and their attorneys already knew of Bickerstaff's changed testimony and payment arrangement before signing the settlement in 1993, the broad release covered such claims without any attempt to rescind it or return the proceeds, and the claims were barred by statutes of limitations.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved physicians and medical groups suing several HMOs in Texas state court under provisions of the Texas Insurance Code and for unjust enrichment, seeking payment for medical services rendered to HMO enrollees since January 2000 after their third-party administrator experienced billing problems. The defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting complete preemption under ERISA and the Medicare Act. The court reconsidered its earlier ruling and held that ERISA does not completely preempt the state-law claims, but concluded that the Medicare Act requires exhaustion of administrative remedies before federal judicial review for claims involving Medicare-covered enrollees, leading to dismissal of those claims without prejudice. As a result, the court remanded the remaining claims to state court for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a negligence claim by Evelyn Brandin and her husband after she slipped and fell near a U.S. Post Office in Port Neches, Texas, in August 1999, resulting in injury and a loss of consortium claim; they sued the Postal Service, GSA, and other parties in state court. The United States removed the case to federal court, substituted itself as defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and moved to dismiss, arguing that no timely administrative claim had been filed with the agency. The court treated the motion as one for partial summary judgment after the plaintiffs failed to respond despite multiple extensions and granted it, holding that the claims against the United States were barred by the two-year jurisdictional deadline in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) because the administrative filing occurred more than two years after the incident. The court then remanded the remaining claims against the non-federal defendants back to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

The case arose when an employee of Oasis Car Wash suffered an on-the-job injury and his wife was allegedly induced to sign a waiver of claims in exchange for medical payments under the company's self-funded injury benefit plan; the plaintiffs then sued in Texas state court for negligence and fraud. Oasis removed the action to federal court, contending that the claims were preempted by ERISA. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, ruling that the state-law tort claims did not sufficiently relate to the ERISA plan to create federal question jurisdiction and that any doubt about jurisdiction required remand to state court.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

This case arose when plaintiff Brenda White sued Cone-Blanchard Corporation (CBC) in Texas state court for product liability and failure-to-warn claims after she was injured in 1997 while operating a Cone-Blanchard Model 11-20 grinding machine at her workplace. The machine had been manufactured and sold in 1981 by Cone-Blanchard Machine Company (CBMC), whose assets CBC acquired through a 1997 court-supervised bankruptcy sale. CBC moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not liable as a successor because it did not design, manufacture, or sell the machine and had no independent duty to warn. The court applied Vermont law to the successor-liability issue and granted the motion, holding that the product-line exception did not apply because CBMC remained in existence after the bankruptcy sale and that CBC had not assumed any service contracts or possessed actual knowledge of a defect.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a negligence lawsuit brought by Texas residents Preston and Deborah LeDoux against Isle of Capri Casinos and related entities after Preston allegedly suffered injuries from casino employees responding to a disorderly patron on a riverboat casino in Lake Charles, Louisiana; Deborah also asserted a loss of consortium claim. The defendants removed the suit from Texas state court to the Eastern District of Texas and then moved to transfer venue to the Western District of Louisiana under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court denied the motion, holding that the defendants failed to meet their burden of showing that the balance of private convenience factors (including plaintiffs' forum choice, witness travel, and sources of proof) and public interest factors (such as local docket congestion and choice-of-law issues) strongly favored transfer, especially given the short 55-mile distance between Beaumont and Lake Charles.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved the Administrative Committee of an H.E.B. employer-sponsored Investment and Retirement Plan filing for declaratory judgment in federal court after the plan participant died and her husband, the sole named beneficiary, pleaded guilty to her murder; the plan had no provision addressing such circumstances, and the defendants (including the husband and four children) did not appear. The court granted the motion and ordered the plan benefits distributed in equal shares to the four surviving children after withholding taxes. The core reasoning was that ERISA either does not preempt Texas's slayer statute barring a convicted killer from recovering proceeds, or alternatively that federal common law, informed by state slayer rules and longstanding equitable principles, prevents the murderer from receiving the benefits in any event.

federal powercriminal lawfamily law