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. 2016-01-0139
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2016

Brown, Bonnie v. Whole Foods Markets, Inc.

Employee Bonnie Brown filed a Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD) alleging a compensable spinal injury sustained on July 22, 2015, in the course and scope of her employment as a food preparer for Whole Foods Markets, Inc. The disputed issues included the employer's failure to provide a proper panel of back specialists/neurosurgeons and to provide requested discovery documents. Ms. Brown subsequently filed a Request for Expedited Hearing, seeking to resolve these discovery issues based on a review of the file without an evidentiary hearing. However, the Workers' Compensation Judge, Thomas Wyatt, denied the expedited hearing request. The Court determined that Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law, specifically Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239, does not permit discovery disputes to be addressed through an expedited hearing. Instead, discovery disputes must be adjudicated upon the review of written motions and affidavits, and Ms. Brown was advised to utilize standard discovery procedures and potentially file a motion to compel if necessary. A Status Conference was set for June 7, 2016.

Expedited Hearing RequestDiscovery DisputesWorkers' Compensation LawSpinal InjuryPetition for Benefit DeterminationDenial of RequestProcedural RulesStatus ConferenceAppeals BoardTennessee Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1983

Claim of Palumbo v. Transport Masters International, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board initially denied a claim due to late filing and lack of advance compensation payment. A subsequently located disability benefits file was reviewed by the Board in the interest of justice. However, the Board found no evidence within this file to indicate a claim for compensation was filed as required by section 28 of the Workers' Compensation Law. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that only questions of fact were presented. The court concluded that the Board's factual findings were conclusive as they were supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Workers' Compensation BoardClaim Filing DeadlineDisability Benefits FileSubstantial EvidenceQuestions of FactAppellate ReviewTime LimitationAdvance PaymentSection 28Administrative Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jeffrey D.

Petitioner filed a petition under Family Court Act article 10, alleging child abuse and neglect of respondents' three-month-old son, Jeffrey. Initial allegations involved scalding and bruises, later supplemented with claims of numerous fractured ribs following further medical examinations. The Family Court found no abuse but adjudicated the child neglected. The mother appealed, but the Appellate Court rejected the mootness argument, citing the permanent stigma of a neglect adjudication. Based on expert medical testimony from Dr. Louise Godine, who identified nine fractured ribs indicative of forceful squeezing and determined the injuries predated the scalding, the Appellate Court affirmed the Family Court's finding. The court noted the parents' failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the injuries, allowing for strong adverse inferences.

Child Neglect AdjudicationFamily Court Act Article 10Infant Rib FracturesScalding InjuriesMedical Expert TestimonyPreponderance of Evidence StandardMootness Doctrine ApplicationParental Explanations DiscreditedAdverse InferencesAppellate Affirmation
References
9
Case No. M2022-00553-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2024

Robert E. Lee Flade v. City of Shelbyville, Tennessee

This case examines the intersection of the rule governing voluntary dismissal of civil actions (Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01) and the statutory scheme of the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA). Robert E. Lee Flade filed suit against the City of Shelbyville, Stephanie Isaacs, and the Bedford County Listening Project (BCLP) over alleged disparaging remarks on social media. Isaacs and BCLP filed motions to dismiss and petitions under the TPPA. Before a hearing, Flade voluntarily nonsuited his complaint, leading to an order of dismissal without prejudice, which prompted the defendants to seek adjudication of their TPPA petitions. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the lower courts' decisions, concluding that the mere filing of a TPPA petition does not limit a plaintiff's right to voluntary nonsuit, create a vested right for adjudication, or qualify as a counterclaim under Rule 41.01(1).

Voluntary NonsuitTennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA)Anti-SLAPP StatuteCivil Procedure Rule 41.01Vested Rights ExceptionCounterclaimAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationConstitutional RightsFree Speech
References
59
Case No. ADJ10110995 (MF)
Regular
Jun 20, 2019

Preston Lee Brown Scott vs. City of Los Angeles

Applicant Preston Lee Brown Scott, previously declared a vexatious litigant, filed multiple documents seeking relief without obtaining the required pre-filing approval. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed these filings and found no significant change in circumstances justifying reconsideration of prior rulings. Consequently, the Board issued an order stating that the submitted documents are not accepted for filing. This order reaffirms the pre-filing requirements for vexatious litigants absent representation by a licensed attorney.

Vexatious LitigantPre-Filing OrderAppeals Board Rule 10782In Pro PerApplication for AdjudicationDeclaration of ReadinessPleadingsPetitionLicensed AttorneyChange in Circumstances
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Darin J. v. Tylena S.

The case concerns an appeal from a Family Court order regarding child neglect. Petitioner Darin J. and Chenango County Department of Social Services filed petitions alleging respondent John K. exposed minor children to pornography, leading to a neglect adjudication against him and a modification of visitation rights for respondent Tylena S. (the mother). Tylena S. and John K. appealed this decision. Their appellate counsel sought to be relieved, claiming no non-frivolous issues existed, but the appellate court identified several such issues. Consequently, the appellate decision is withheld, counsels' applications to be relieved are granted, and new counsel will be assigned to address the identified issues.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActVisitation RightsOrder of ProtectionAppellate ReviewCounsel AssignmentNon-Frivolous IssuesSufficiency of EvidenceFamily AssessmentPornography Exposure
References
5
Case No. ADJ460672 (SFO 0499592), ADJ224818 (SFO 0499593)
Regular
Jul 11, 2012

HAMID KHAZAELI vs. SPEDIA.COM, INC., and SYSMASTER CORP., GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO

Applicant Hamid Khazaeli has been declared a vexatious litigant under CCR Title 8, Section 10782, requiring pre-filing approval for any filings with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) unless represented by an attorney. His "Petition for Reconsideration, Removal, Disqualification, and to Compel Testimony" filed on June 29, 2012, was reviewed. The WCAB did not accept this petition for filing, deeming it largely duplicative of prior dismissed and rejected filings. This decision reinforces the applicant's status as a vexatious litigant subject to strict pre-filing review protocols.

Vexatious LitigantPre-filing OrderCCR Title 8 Section 10782Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalDisqualificationCompel TestimonyJudicial OfficersQuasi-Judicial OfficersAppeals Board
References
2
Case No. ADJ10110995
Regular
Oct 14, 2020

PRESTON LEE BROWN SCOTT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, THE HARTFORD

The applicant, Preston Lee Brown Scott, was declared a vexatious litigant in 2018 and is subject to a pre-filing order. This order requires him to obtain prior approval from a judge before filing any documents with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). He has filed multiple petitions for reconsideration without this approval. The WCAB has reviewed these filings and found no significant change in circumstances to warrant acceptance. Therefore, the documents submitted by Mr. Scott are not accepted for filing.

Vexatious litigantPre-filing orderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRule 10430Rule 10782In pro perPetition for ReconsiderationAdjudication of claimDeclaration of readinessPleading
References
16
Case No. 14-00-00391-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2002

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's NCS Inc Angela M. Smith, Individually and as Next Friend of Brandon William Hendrix a Minor v. Smith, Angela M. , Individually and as Next Friend of Brandon William Hendrix a Minor

This case involves an order from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals to withdraw previously issued opinions. The initial appeals, filed by Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, and National Convenience Stores, Inc., against Angela M. Smith, were dismissed following a settlement involving a minor and subsequent approval by the trial court. While the court initially vacated its judgment but not the opinions, Angela M. Smith filed a motion for rehearing, which was granted, leading to the withdrawal of the Majority, Concurring, and Dissenting Opinions issued on April 25, 2002. Chief Justice Brister issued a dissenting opinion on this withdrawal, arguing against the narrow interpretation of 'insurable interest' in the context of employer-employee life insurance policies, particularly in light of modern business practices and legislative changes to the Texas Insurance Code. He highlighted concerns about the impact of a previous ruling (Tamez) on potential mass tort litigation and emphasized the need for a liberal construction of insurable interest to reflect current public policy and protect employers from uninsured losses.

Insurable InterestEmployer LiabilityWorkers' CompensationSettlementAppellate ProcedureCase WithdrawalDissenting OpinionTexas Insurance LawCommon Law InterpretationMass Tort Litigation
References
32
Case No. ADJ4599548 (MON 0212034), ADJ1776170 (MON 0224335)
Regular
Sep 17, 2012

KRISTIAN VON RITZHOFF vs. OGDEN ENTERTAINMENT, AIG, BROADSPIRE, a CRAWFORD COMPANY

Kristian Von Ritzhoff has been declared a vexatious litigant by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) under California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10782. This designation requires him to obtain prior approval from the Presiding Judge or the Appeals Board before filing any pleadings, unless represented by a licensed attorney. The WCAB reviewed a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Von Ritzhoff, dated September 10, 2012, and determined it was *not accepted* for filing. This ruling signifies the Board's adherence to the pre-filing order in managing the applicant's litigation activities.

Vexatious litigantPre-filing orderWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalExtraordinary remedyDeputy CommissionerOgden EntertainmentBroadspire
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 13,094 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