CompFox AI Summary
Justice O'Brien concurs in part and dissents in part from the lead opinion. He agrees Mr. Hodges had a right of action against his employer under T.C.A. § 22-4-108 but argues against further judicial overreach into legislative policy-making. Citing precedents like Chism v. Mid-South Milling Co. and Harney v. Meadowbrook Nursing Center, O'Brien emphasizes that public policy is primarily established by the Constitution and statutes, not judicial decisions. He criticizes the majority's interpretation of Clanton v. Cain-Sloan Co. to create a tort action for retaliatory discharge, asserting that T.C.A. § 22-4-108(f) provides the exclusive statutory remedy for violations related to jury duty. Justice O'Brien states he would affirm the Court of Appeals' decision.
Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co. is a workers' compensation case decided in Tennessee Supreme Court. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Tennessee Supreme Court.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Justice O'Brien concurs in part and dissents in part from the lead opinion. He agrees Mr. Hodges had a right of action against his employer under T.C.A. § 22-4-108 but argues against further judicial overreach into legislative policy-making. Citing precedents like Chism v. Mid-South Milling Co. and Harney v. Meadowbrook Nursing Center, O'Brien emphasizes that public policy is primarily established by the Constitution and statutes, not judicial decisions. He criticizes the majority's interpretation of Clanton v. Cain-Sloan Co. to create a tort action for retaliatory discharge, asserting that T.C.A. § 22-4-108(f) provides the exclusive statutory remedy for violations related to jury duty. Justice O'Brien states he would affirm the Court of Appeals' decision.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.