procedural, then its requirements can be waived, either expressly or by conduct. Smith, 389 B.R. at 910. A majority of cases hold that Section 157(b)(5) is jurisdictional in nature. See, e.g., Patterson, 150 B.R. at 368 (withdrawing the reference to the bankruptcy court of a personal injury tort action based upon the specific exception to bankruptcy court jurisdiction mandated by Section 157(b)(5)); Nifong, 2008 WL 2203149, *2 (“[I]f there are claims in the Civil Action that are ‘personal injury torts,’ such claims must be tried in the district court and not in this court.”); Erickson, 330 B.R. at 349 (“It follows that this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the discrimination claim, although it has exclusive jurisdiction to 8 B.R. 890, 895-96 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1998) (<HOLDING>); Thomas v. Adams (In re Gary Brew Enterprises,
recognizing validity of cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress recognizing torts of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress holding that act did not bar intentional infliction of emotional distress claim holding that a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is distinct from a claim for emotional distress damages under the employment discrimination statute holding that intentional infliction of emotional distress is a personal injury tort