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

Valencia v. Freeland & Lemm Construction Co.

This case addresses the interpretation of the "actual intent" exception to the exclusive remedy provision of Tennessee's Workers' Compensation Law. The plaintiff, as next friend of Francisco Valencia, appealed the dismissal of tort claims against Freeland and Lemm Construction Company, whose alleged safety violations led to Valencia's death in a trench collapse. The plaintiff argued that an employer's conduct "substantially certain" to cause injury or death should fall under the intentional tort exception. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that the exception strictly requires proof of "actual intent" to injure the employee, distinguishing it from conduct that is merely grossly or criminally negligent or "substantially certain" to cause harm. Consequently, workers' compensation remains the exclusive remedy in the absence of such actual intent.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusive Remedy ProvisionIntentional Tort ExceptionActual IntentSubstantially Certain ConductEmployer LiabilityWorkplace FatalityTrench CollapseSafety ViolationsStatutory Interpretation
References
13
Case No. M2001-02055-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2002

Wallace Forsythe v. Timothy Gibbs

A laborer, Wallace Forsythe, was injured during horseplay initiated by his employer, Timothy Gibbs, and sought damages in tort. The trial court dismissed the suit, applying the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Statute. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the trial court's decision. The court found that while the employer's actions constituted civil assault and battery, there was no evidence of actual intent to injure, which is a stringent standard required to bypass workers' compensation exclusivity. Therefore, workers' compensation was deemed the plaintiff's sole remedy. The appellate court also upheld the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, ruling it would be a futile gesture as it would not establish the necessary intent to injure.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyIntentional TortHorseplaySummary JudgmentAssault and BatteryScope of EmploymentTrial Court DiscretionAmendment of ComplaintAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

King v. Ross Coal Co., Inc.

The plaintiff, Gorman Donald King, was severely injured by a falling rock at the defendant's strip mining operation. He filed a common law action against his employer, arguing the incident was an intentional tort, thus circumventing the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The employer's motion for summary judgment was granted by the trial court, which ruled that the Workers' Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, emphasizing that allegations of gross or criminal negligence, or even acts "equivalent to a deliberate attempt to produce such injury," do not equate to the actual intent to injure required to bypass the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity.

Intentional TortExclusive RemedyWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentGross NegligenceActual Intent to InjureStrip Mining AccidentEmployer LiabilityAppellate DecisionTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzales v. Alman Construction Co.

Plaintiff James Franklin Gonzales was severely injured while working for Alman Construction Company due to an undetonated blasting cap. He and his wife filed a common law action against Alman, alleging willful and intentional misconduct, including numerous TOSHA violations related to blasting safety and the use of untrained personnel. Alman moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy. The trial court denied Alman's motion. On appeal, the court determined that Tennessee law requires actual intent to injure to bypass the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, a standard not met by allegations of gross negligence or safety violations. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the plaintiffs' common law action, affirming workers' compensation as the sole recourse.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyIntentional TortEmployer LiabilityGross NegligenceBlasting AccidentConstruction SafetyOccupational SafetySummary JudgmentMotion to Dismiss
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Coffee Products Co. v. Cazarez

Juanita Cazarez sued her employer, Continental Coffee Products Company, and its manager, Alan D. Duff, for retaliatory discharge after she filed a workers' compensation claim, violating Tex. Lab. Code § 451.001. The trial court awarded actual and punitive damages. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the finding of a statutory violation and the award of actual damages, but reversed the punitive damages award, finding no evidence of actual malice (ill-will, spite, or specific intent to injure) as required for punitive damages under section 451.001. The court clarified the causation standard for retaliatory discharge cases and discussed jurisdictional issues for county civil courts at law.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers' CompensationPunitive damagesActual damagesMaliceEmployment lawCausation standardJurisdictionStatutory interpretationTexas Anti-Retaliation Law
References
45
Case No. W2012-01173-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2013

Celia Moody Rodgers and Sherry Moody Gonzalez, Sole Survivors of Joan Lois Moody v. GCA Services Group, Inc., and Weakley County Tennessee

The case involves an appeal concerning injuries sustained by a deceased employee due to mold exposure during her employment. Her heirs, Celia Moody Rodgers and Sherry Moody Gonzalez, filed common law tort claims against the employers, GCA Services Group, Inc. and Weakley County Tennessee, alleging intentional injury. The employers sought dismissal, asserting that the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy. The trial court granted the dismissal, finding the tort claims barred. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, reiterating that the intentional tort exception to the exclusive remedy provision requires 'actual intent' to injure, and mere gross negligence or knowing dangerous conditions are insufficient to overcome the workers' compensation exclusivity.

Workers' CompensationIntentional TortExclusive RemedyMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewActual IntentGross NegligenceEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityMold Exposure
References
24
Case No. ADJ6502736
Regular
Oct 19, 2011

JUAN BARCENAS vs. THE BEST MASTER ENTERPRISES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final notice of intention to dismiss, not an actual decision. The WCAB granted removal to address the frivolous nature of the petition, as it lacked reasonable justification and wasted judicial resources. Consequently, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to impose a $500 sanction on the lien claimant for filing this unjustified petition. The lien claimant has 15 days to object with good cause.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to Dismiss LiensLien ClaimantWCJRemovalSanctionLabor Code section 5813Reasonable JustificationFrivolous Petition
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rutledge v. Al. G. Kelly & Miller Bros. Circus

Chief Judge Desmond concurs with the decision to affirm in the present cases, providing a separate statement for simpler grounds. He argues that employees hired to work in New York and other states, if injured while actually working in New York, should unquestionably be covered by the Workmen's Compensation Law. He references earlier cases like Matter of Marks v. Gray where regularly traveling employees injured outside the State were awarded compensation, emphasizing that in the current cases, the employees were injured inside the State while at work. The opinion stresses that the court is construing the New York Workmen’s Compensation Law, which presumes coverage for workers injured doing their hired job in New York, where they were hired to do it. The decision can be based on simpler and more basic grounds because the traveling employee was injured while actually at work in New York State.

Workers' Compensation CoverageOut-of-State EmploymentIn-State InjuryTraveling EmployeeJurisdictionConcurring OpinionWorkmen's Compensation Law ConstructionPresumption of CoverageEmployee ItineraryContracted Work Location
References
4
Case No. E2017-01345-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2018

Carl Lester Byrd, Jr. v. Appalachian Electric Cooperative

The plaintiff, Carl Lester Byrd, Jr., appealed the dismissal of his outrageous conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against his employer, Appalachian Electric Cooperative. The trial court dismissed the claim, citing that Mr. Byrd had previously filed a workers' compensation claim for injuries arising from the same incident, making workers' compensation his exclusive remedy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate 'actual intent' to injure on the employer's part, which is a necessary exception to the workers' compensation exclusivity rule. The appellate court also declined the employer's request for attorney's fees, deeming the appeal not frivolous.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressOutrageous ConductActual Intent ExceptionEmployer LiabilityScope of EmploymentRule 12 DismissalPro Se LitigantFrivolous AppealTort Claims
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mize v. Conagra, Inc.

This case involves wrongful death actions brought by plaintiffs following an explosion and fire at Conagra, Inc.'s manufacturing facility, which resulted in the deaths of employees. The trial court granted summary judgments to Conagra, ruling that the Workers' Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the employer's gross negligence and violation of safety regulations constituted an intentional tort, bypassing the exclusive remedy. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgments, emphasizing that Tennessee law distinguishes gross negligence from actual intent to injure. The court also upheld the constitutionality of the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act against due process challenges.

Workers' Compensation ActExclusive Remedy ProvisionIntentional Tort ExceptionWrongful DeathGross NegligenceOccupational Safety and Health ActSummary JudgmentConstitutional ChallengeDue ProcessEmployer Liability
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 7,512 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