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. W2023-00441-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2024

Werner Reichenberger v. Deniece Thomas, Commissioner

Werner Reichenberger appealed the denial of his unemployment compensation benefits by the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development. The chancery court reversed the Department's decision, finding it arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion. The Department appealed to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee. The appellate court affirmed the chancery court's decision, ruling that the Department's insistence on strict compliance with an unpublished identification policy, despite Reichenberger providing credible proof of identity, was arbitrary and capricious. The case was remanded for further proceedings to the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Division of Unemployment Security.

Unemployment BenefitsAdministrative AppealJudicial ReviewIdentity VerificationEligibility ConditionsArbitrary and CapriciousAbuse of DiscretionGovernment RegulationTennessee LawLabor and Workforce Development
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Central New York Workers' Compensation Bar Ass'n v. State of New York Workers' Compensation Board

Petitioners challenged the State of New York Workers’ Compensation Board’s policy that permitted the State Insurance Fund to install computer hardware in the Board’s Syracuse office, granting wireless Internet access to the Fund’s attorneys during proceedings, while denying the same to other attorneys. The Supreme Court found this policy to be arbitrary and capricious. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Board’s policy provided an unfair competitive advantage to the State Insurance Fund, which, despite its state agency status, functions as an insurer in proceedings before the Board. This disparate treatment in litigation access was deemed arbitrary and capricious.

Wireless Access PolicyArbitrary & CapriciousCompetitive AdvantageState AgencyInsurance FundEqual TreatmentLitigation AccessAppellate ReviewAdministrative ProcedureOnondaga County
References
8
Case No. M2020-01433-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2021

Kodi Gail Knight v. The City of Fairview, Williamson County, Tennessee

This appeal concerns the termination of police officer Kodi Gail Knight by the City of Fairview, Tennessee. Knight was dismissed after an incident in which he struck a handcuffed woman in the face, leading to an investigation for improper use of force and misrepresentation. Knight challenged his termination, asserting violations of procedural due process rights and arguing the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Court found Knight to be an at-will employee, lacking a property interest for due process protection. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the City Manager's decision to affirm Knight's termination was supported by substantial and material evidence and was neither arbitrary nor capricious, thereby affirming the Trial Court's judgment.

Police officer terminationAt-will employmentDue process rightsUse of force policyMisrepresentation by officerAdministrative reviewCertiorariTennessee lawPublic employmentPolice misconduct
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Friends of Square v. Sadik-Khan

The petitioners initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the decision by the New York City Department of Transportation, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, and the City of New York to install a bike share station in Lieutenant Joseph Petrosino Square Park. They contended that the installation violated the public trust doctrine and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court determined that while the park is impliedly dedicated parkland, the bike share station serves a proper park purpose. Furthermore, the court found that the respondents' decision to site the station was rational, based on technical considerations and public input, and was not arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied and dismissed in its entirety.

Public Trust DoctrineParkland UseBike Share StationsArticle 78 PetitionAdministrative ReviewMunicipal PlanningUrban DevelopmentNew York LawEnvironmental PolicyCommunity Engagement
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Department of Insurance v. State Farm Lloyds

This appeal addresses a rate supervision order issued by the Commissioner of Insurance that revoked State Farm Lloyds' ability to set insurance rates without prior approval. The district court had reversed the commissioner's order, deeming it arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, and a violation of due process. On appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the supervision order was arbitrary and capricious, thus upholding its reversal. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment on due process and substantial evidence, concluding that a contested case hearing was not statutorily required. Consequently, the rate supervision order was reversed, but the case was not remanded to TDI for further proceedings.

Insurance LawRate RegulationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSummary JudgmentDue ProcessArbitrary and CapriciousSubstantial EvidenceStatutory InterpretationProperty Rights
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miele v. Town of Clarkstown

A police officer, after an initial back injury in 1998 for which he received General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits, later ceased working again in 2000 due to continued back pain. The Chief of Police of the Town of Clarkstown denied his request for GML § 207-c benefits for this subsequent absence, determining it was unrelated to the original injury based on a doctor's report. The officer initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the denial as arbitrary and capricious and seeking to compel the Town to award benefits. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the Chief of Police's determination had a rational basis in the record, thus not arbitrary and capricious.

Workers' CompensationPolice OfficerLine of Duty InjuryBenefits DenialCPLR Article 78Arbitrary and CapriciousRational BasisAppellate ReviewBack InjuryGeneral Municipal Law 207-c
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Metz v. County of Suffolk

Petitioner Metz challenged the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR)'s determination of no probable cause regarding her disability discrimination complaint against the County of Suffolk, Department of Labor. Metz, a clerk/typist, alleged the County failed to accommodate her disability by transferring her to a worksite that worsened her medical condition, despite other alleged available positions. She contended that the NYSDHR's dismissal was arbitrary and capricious, partly due to insufficient time to present evidence. The court, applying the 'arbitrary and capricious or lacking a rational basis' standard, found that Metz did not meet her burden. The court concluded that her claim was about commute length, not essential job functions, and lacked verified evidence, ultimately denying her application.

Disability discriminationReasonable accommodationHuman rights lawProbable causeAdministrative reviewArbitrary and capriciousSuffolk CountyClerk/typistEmployment lawWorksite transfer
References
8
Case No. M2011-02607-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2012

Gary Clarke v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Acting by and through Electric Power Board as Nashville Electric Service

Gary Clarke, an employee of Nashville Electric Service (NES), faced constructive demotion after marrying a co-worker's daughter, which NES deemed a violation of its nepotism policy. The policy prohibited relatives from working in the same 'section,' a term undefined in the policy and inconsistently applied by NES. Clarke's grievance was dismissed by the civil service board, but the trial court reversed this decision, finding it arbitrary and capricious due to a lack of evidentiary foundation for NES's interpretation of 'section.' The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious given the inconsistencies in the policy's application and the absence of substantial and material evidence to support NES's definition of 'section.'

Nepotism PolicyEmployment LawAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousCivil Service BoardContract InterpretationGrievanceDemotionAppellate Court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wallace v. American Petrofina, Inc.

Plaintiff Harles H. Wallace filed an action under ERISA against the Retirement Committee of PINA, alleging the arbitrary and capricious administration of his retirement plan, specifically regarding the calculation of his pension benefits. Wallace contested the exclusion of 1982, a strike year, from his 'final average earnings,' which led to a reduced lump sum benefit. The Retirement Committee, with legal and actuarial advice, interpreted the plan to exclude 1982 due to a 'break in service' and no 'basic earnings in effect' during the strike. The court, applying an arbitrary and capricious standard, found the Committee's interpretation and consistent application of the plan to be correct and in good faith. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Wallace's cause of action was dismissed.

ERISAPension BenefitsRetirement PlanSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious StandardPlan InterpretationStrike PeriodBreak in ServiceFinal Average EarningsNormal Basic Earnings
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Murphy v. Wal-Mart Associates' Group Health Plan

Hazel and Charlie Murphy sued Wal-Mart Associates’ Group Health Plan and Prudential Health Care Plan after the Plan denied coverage for Mr. Murphy's high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplant for Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. The Murphys alleged the Wal-Mart Plan acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying benefits and their subsequent appeal, and brought state law claims against Prudential. The court found that Wal-Mart Plan's decision was based on medical expert opinions and was not arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, it determined that ERISA preempted all state law claims against Prudential. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for both defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims.

ERISAEmployee BenefitsHealth InsuranceSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious StandardMedical NecessityHigh-Dose ChemotherapyAutologous Bone Marrow TransplantNon-Hodgkin’s LymphomaPlan Administrator Discretion
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 391 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