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

Biscan v. Brown

The provided text is a concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, C.J., in a case regarding the apportionment of fault in a comparative fault system. While agreeing with the majority on some points, Justice Drowota disagrees with the exclusion of Dana Biscan from fault apportionment, despite Tennessee Code Annotated section 57-10-101 precluding legal liability for furnishing alcohol. The opinion argues that disallowing fault to an "effectively immune" tortfeasor, like Dana Biscan, contradicts established Tennessee comparative fault jurisprudence, particularly McIntyre v. Balentine, Carroll v. Whitney, and Dotson v. Blake. Justice Drowota contends that the majority's approach undermines the principle of linking liability to fault, blinds the jury to relevant evidence, and imposes liability disproportionately, thereby injecting confusion into settled law.

Comparative FaultTort LawAlcohol LiabilityStatutory ImmunityProximate CauseApportionment of FaultJudicial DissentTennessee LawMcIntyre v. BalentineCarroll v. Whitney
References
8
Case No. M2001-02766-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2005

Jennifer L. Biscan v. Franklin H. Brown - Concurring and Dissenting

Chief Justice Drowota pens a concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion regarding the apportionment of fault in a comparative fault case. He agrees with the majority on the exclusion of evidence of Jennifer Biscan's prior alcohol experiences and that Paul Worley owed a duty of care. However, he disagrees with the majority's analysis concerning the apportionment of fault to Dana Biscan, who is effectively immune from liability under Tennessee Code Annotated section 57-10-101 (furnishing alcohol). Drowota argues that fault should still be assigned to immune or effectively immune tortfeasors, citing precedents like Carroll v. Whitney and Dotson v. Blake, to uphold the principle of linking liability to fault. He contends that the majority's decision contradicts prior comparative fault jurisprudence and introduces unnecessary confusion.

Comparative FaultApportionment of FaultImmunity from LiabilityStatutory ImmunityTennessee Code Annotated 57-10-101Proximate CauseLinking Liability to FaultJudicial DissentLegal CausationTennessee Supreme Court
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 1997

Marte v. St. John's University

This case involves an appeal concerning an interlocutory judgment related to a personal injury action. The defendant third-party plaintiff appealed a jury verdict that favored the third-party defendant on liability. The appellate court examined the principles of indemnification and contribution under Labor Law § 240 (1) and Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, particularly when an owner is found partially at fault. It was determined that the trial court erred by not allowing the apportionment of fault between the third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendant. Consequently, the interlocutory judgment was reversed, and a new trial was granted solely on the issue of proper fault apportionment.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionLabor LawWorkers' Compensation LawApportionment of FaultIndemnificationContributionJury VerdictAppellate ReviewInterlocutory Judgment
References
8
Case No. M2017-00413-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2018

Edna Green v. St. George's Episcopal Church

This appeal concerns a personal injury action filed by Edna Green against St. George’s Episcopal Church. Ms. Green was injured during a church outing when a bus, owned by the church and driven by a parishioner, jolted over drainage berms at Green Door Gourmet. The church alleged the comparative fault of Green Door Gourmet, a nonparty, arguing potential immunity under Tennessee’s agritourism statute. The trial court permitted the jury to apportion fault to Green Door Gourmet despite arguments of immunity. The jury found St. George’s 15% at fault and Green Door Gourmet 85% at fault. Ms. Green appealed, contending the trial court erred in allowing fault allocation to an allegedly immune nonparty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the agritourism statute limits liability but does not preclude the allocation of fault to an agritourism professional in a negligence action, thereby upholding the jury's apportionment.

Personal InjuryComparative FaultAgritourism StatuteStatutory ImmunityNonparty Fault AllocationNegligence ActionJury Verdict ReviewAppellate DecisionTennessee AgritourismImmunity from Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nitzke v. Loveland

The Supreme Court erred in its conclusion regarding the jury's apportionment of fault, finding sufficient evidence of the plaintiff's abrupt stop to raise a triable issue, and wrongly setting aside the jury's fault apportionment. The court also incorrectly denied the defendants' motion to reduce the verdict by Workers' Compensation benefits received by the plaintiff for lost wages and medical expenses, as these payments should reduce the verdict under CPLR 4545 (c). The defendants failed to preserve the serious injury issue for appellate review. However, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the jury's failure to award damages for past and future pain and suffering was against the weight of the evidence, necessitating a new trial on that issue. The appellate order was modified to reinstate the jury's award for medical expenses and lost earnings, adjusted for collateral source payments, and remitted for further proceedings.

NegligenceComparative NegligenceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCollateral Source RuleJury VerdictDamagesPain and SufferingLost WagesMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Huss v. Tops Markets, Inc.

In 1985, claimant sustained a right shoulder injury while employed by Dunlop Tire, resulting in a permanent partial disability. In 1998, he re-injured the same shoulder while working for Tops Markets, Inc., leading to a new workers' compensation claim. An impartial specialist attributed 85% of the disability to the 1985 injury and 15% to the 1998 injury. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially rejected apportionment, the Board reversed and applied the 85/15 apportionment. Claimant appealed, contending apportionment was unwarranted due to his disclosure of the prior injury and lack of prior disability symptoms. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial medical evidence to support the apportionment.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentPrior InjuryShoulder InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical Expert TestimonyBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewExacerbation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Turner v. Sixtieth Street Automotive Service Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a personal injury action. Initially, a jury found the plaintiff 80% at fault and the defendants 20%. The Supreme Court, Kings County, subsequently granted the plaintiff's motion to set aside the jury's apportionment of fault, offering a new trial on liability unless the parties stipulated to a 50/50 fault distribution. The defendants appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, denied the plaintiff's motion, and reinstated the original jury verdict, concluding that the jury's finding of 80% fault for the plaintiff was consistent with a fair interpretation of the evidence and should not have been disturbed.

Personal injuryDamagesJury verdictApportionment of faultNegligenceAppellate reviewTrial court errorEvidenceKings CountyCivil procedure
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2003

Claim of Peck v. Village of Gouverneur

Claimant, a volunteer firefighter, sustained head, chest, and neck injuries in a 2000 work-related accident. During surgery for these injuries, cancerous growths were discovered along his spine, prompting the employer to request apportionment of his workers' compensation award. Both the treating physician and the employer-retained physician affirmed the causal relationship between the fracture and the work-related accident. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the subsequent Workers’ Compensation Board both ruled against apportionment. The appellate court affirmed, citing that apportionment is inappropriate when a claimant's prior non-compensable condition did not hinder their ability to perform duties.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentVolunteer FirefighterWork-Related InjuryPre-existing ConditionCancer DiagnosisCausally RelatedMedical Expert TestimonyEmployer AppealBoard Decision Affirmed
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McClam v. American Axle & Manufacturing

Claimant suffered two right shoulder injuries, one in 1997 while working for CF Motorfreight, and another in 2000 while working for American Axle & Manufacturing. After the second injury, American Axle sought apportionment of the workers' compensation award, which was initially granted by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge but limited to medical treatment. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently determined that any apportionment should be deferred until a finding of permanency is made. American Axle appealed this deferral, arguing against the limitation of apportionment. However, the appellate court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Board's decision was an unappealable interlocutory decision, thus avoiding piecemeal review of workers’ compensation issues.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentShoulder InjurySchedule Loss of UseInterlocutory AppealDeferral of AwardPermanency FindingBoard ReviewMedical ExaminationEmployer Liability
References
6
Case No. W2010-01825-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2011

Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a AT&T (TN) v. Shundra Y. Young and Maureen F. Kinsella

Plaintiff Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. sued Shundra Y. Young and Maureen F. Kinsella for damages following a motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred when an unidentified white SUV caused Kinsella to swerve, leading Young to collide with Bellsouth's cross-connect box. Initially, the trial court struck defendants' attempts to assign comparative fault to the unidentified nonparty but later allowed references to the nonparty during trial for contextual purposes, though not for fault attribution by the jury. The jury ultimately found no fault with either defendant, prompting Bellsouth's appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, citing precedent that allows for broad allocation of fault to all persons involved in an injury-causing event, even unidentified ones, to ensure fair apportionment of liability.

Comparative FaultUnidentified TortfeasorNonparty DefenseMotor Vehicle AccidentAppellate ReviewJury InstructionsProximate CauseJoint and Several LiabilitySudden EmergencyTennessee Law
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,967 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