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

Glass v. City of Chattanooga

The case concerns a motor vehicle accident where Queen Ann Glass, a school bus driver for the City of Chattanooga, was injured by a fellow employee's negligence. As the City of Chattanooga is exempt from workers' compensation laws, the dispute centered on the applicability of the common law fellow servant doctrine. The trial court initially awarded damages to Glass, but the Court of Appeals reversed, applying the doctrine. The Supreme Court of Tennessee ultimately reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, finding the fellow servant doctrine to be an unjust and outdated rule that no longer serves a useful purpose in contemporary jurisprudence, and reinstated the trial court's judgment for the plaintiff.

Fellow Servant DoctrineRespondeat SuperiorCommon Law TortEmployer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExemptionJudicial PrecedentNegligenceMotor Vehicle AccidentBus DriverTennessee Supreme Court
References
26
Case No. E2011-00484-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2012

Mickel Hoback v. City of Chattanooga

Mickel Hoback, a police officer diagnosed with PTSD after serving in Iraq, was terminated by the City of Chattanooga based on a "fitness for duty" psychological examination deeming him unfit. Hoback appealed his termination to the Chancery Court, which reversed the City Commission's decision, finding it applied incorrect legal standards and ordering reinstatement. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed that the Commission used the wrong legal standard, specifically Tenn. Code Ann. § 38-8-106, which had been deemed invalid under a federal consent order related to the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, the appellate court vacated the order for reinstatement and remanded the case back to the Chattanooga City Council for reconsideration under the proper legal standards outlined in the federal consent order.

Police Officer TerminationPTSD DisabilityAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewWrong Legal StandardReinstatement VacatedRemand to City CouncilADA ComplianceDisability DiscriminationEmployment Law
References
18
Case No. E2001-02017-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2002

Karen Mountjoy v. City of Chattanooga

Karen Mountjoy sued the City of Chattanooga for retaliation under the Tennessee Human Rights Act after she was demoted following a sexual harassment complaint against her supervisor, John Henderson. The jury found in favor of Mountjoy on the retaliation claim, awarding her $61,179 for economic loss, and the trial court also awarded attorney fees and discretionary costs. The City appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for retaliation, excessive jury verdict, and abuse of discretion in awarding fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding material evidence supported the jury's verdict on retaliation and damages, and that the City failed to prove an abuse of discretion regarding attorney fees and costs.

RetaliationSexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationTennessee Human Rights ActJury VerdictEconomic LossAttorney FeesDiscretionary CostsMitigation of DamagesAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Chattanooga v. Davis

The Tennessee Supreme Court consolidated two cases to address whether Article VI, section 14 of the Tennessee Constitution, limiting fines to fifty dollars unless assessed by a jury, applies to municipal ordinance violations. Overruling prior precedent, the Court established a test: the limitation applies if the monetary assessment's primary purpose or effect is punitive. Applying this, the Court found the fines in both City of Chattanooga v. Davis and Barrett v. Metropolitan Government were punitive and reduced them to fifty dollars, citing the municipal courts' lack of jury authority. The Court also affirmed the facial constitutionality of certain state statutes regarding municipal penalties but emphasized the need for individualized accounting of administrative expenses. Finally, it recognized potential infringements on the District Attorney General's authority but ruled that the appellant lacked standing to challenge them.

Municipal OrdinancesConstitutional LawFines and PenaltiesJury Trial RightsTennessee Constitution Article VI, Section 14Punitive vs Remedial SanctionsDouble JeopardyClass LegislationEqual ProtectionDistrict Attorney Authority
References
70
Case No. M2000-02573-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2001

Richard Wilson v. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Dr. Richard Wilson, a tenured professor at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC), appealed his dismissal for alleged sexual harassment and persistent policy violations. The Chancery Court had affirmed an Administrative Judge's decision to terminate his employment. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that Dr. Wilson's conduct toward a student, Ms. Oo, was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to meet Title VII's sexual harassment standard. Furthermore, the court found that UTC's sexual harassment policy, which referenced Title VII, did not adequately inform Dr. Wilson that his actions would constitute a violation, nor did prior warnings about inviting students home suffice as policy violations. The appellate court deemed the Administrative Judge's decision arbitrary, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Sexual Harassment PolicyFaculty TerminationAcademic FreedomTenured EmploymentUniversity DisciplineDue Process RightsAppellate Standards of ReviewHostile EnvironmentTitle VII LiabilityTitle IX Compliance
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Chattanooga General Services Co.

This worker\'s compensation case addresses a defendant\'s appeal challenging a Chancellor\'s award of disability benefits. The plaintiff, an employee of Chattanooga General Services, suffered a lower back injury and was awarded 60% disability. The defendants argued that the plaintiff fraudulently misrepresented or concealed a substantial twenty-year history of back problems during her job application process. While the Chancellor initially sided with the plaintiff, the appellate court reversed this decision. The court found that despite the plaintiff\'s claims of memory loss due to medication, there was compelling evidence, including her own prior statements and medical records, indicating she knowingly withheld critical health information during hiring. The ruling emphasized that incomplete or misleading answers, especially on a signed certification, constituted fraudulent misrepresentation, thus barring her recovery. The case was dismissed and remanded to the Chancery Court of Hamilton County.

worker\'s compensationfraudulent misrepresentationconcealed medical historyback injurypre-existing conditionemployment applicationmaterial misrepresentationreliancecausationmedical expert testimony
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority

The plaintiff sought workers’ compensation benefits from the defendant hospital authority for an alleged employment-related injury. The trial court rejected the claim, citing two grounds: the employer's exemption from Workers' Compensation Laws and the expiration of the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court of Tennessee focused on the exemption issue, concluding that the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority, as a governmental hospital authority and a subdivision of the state and county, is exempt from the Workers’ Compensation Act under T.C.A. § 50-6-106(5). The court found that the authority's charter legislation clearly indicates its status as a public instrumentality performing a governmental function. Consequently, the trial court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint was affirmed, as the authority had not elected to operate under the workers’ compensation laws.

Workers' Compensation ExemptionGovernmental ImmunityHospital AuthorityStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawPublic InstrumentalitySubdivision of StateEmployer ExemptionAppellate DecisionAffirmed Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Greater Chattanooga Public Television Corp.

This Tennessee Court of Appeals opinion addresses an appeal from summary judgments granted to the defendant, Greater Chattanooga Public Television Corporation (WTCI), in an age discrimination and retaliatory discharge lawsuit. Plaintiffs Kelly Williams, Robert Williams, Earlynn Schubert, Cynthia Lowry, and Barbara Dadswell alleged age-based discrimination and wrongful termination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Kelly Williams, Robert Williams, and Earlynn Schubert on their age discrimination claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the employer's stated reasons for termination. For Barbara Dadswell, the Court affirmed the summary judgment on her age discrimination claim but reversed and remanded her retaliatory discharge claim, concluding that a jury question existed regarding the reasonableness of her belief that copying a Nielsen Report was an illegal activity violating public policy. The case underscores the standards for summary judgment in employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims under Tennessee law.

Age DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentTennessee Human Rights ActEmployment LawMcDonnell Douglas TestConstructive DischargeAt-will EmploymentPublic Policy ExceptionBurden Shifting
References
36
Case No. E2000-00664-SC-R11-CV; M1999-01130-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2001

City of Chattanooga v. Kevin Davis

This consolidated case addresses whether Article VI, section 14 of the Tennessee Constitution, which limits fines to fifty dollars unless assessed by a jury, applies to municipal ordinance violations. The Supreme Court of Tennessee held that the clause applies when the monetary assessment is punitive in purpose or effect, overturning previous conflicting interpretations. The Court affirmed the reduction of fines to fifty dollars in both City of Chattanooga v. Davis and Barrett v. Metropolitan Government, as the municipal courts lacked the authority to empanel a jury for higher punitive assessments. Additionally, the Court addressed constitutional challenges to specific Tennessee Code Annotated sections and the District Attorney General's authority, largely affirming the appellate court's rulings while noting potential infringements on prosecutorial discretion.

Constitutional LawFines ClauseMunicipal Ordinance ViolationsPunitive vs Remedial SanctionsJury Trial RightsArticle VI, Section 14 (Tennessee Constitution)Article XI, Section 8 (Tennessee Constitution)Article VI, Section 5 (Tennessee Constitution)Separation of PowersDistrict Attorney Authority
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weesner v. Electric Power Board of Chattanooga

This case involves a dispute over the amount of retirement compensation due to employees of the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, Tennessee. The Board established a retirement plan in 1944, later revised, which included employee contributions and a guaranteed minimum retirement income of 20% of their base salary. Following an overwhelming employee vote in 1956 to accept Social Security benefits, the Board assured employees that their existing retirement rights would remain unaffected. However, a 1958 revision to the plan altered the calculation of the minimum retirement income to include primary Social Security benefits, effectively reducing the Board's contribution. The complainants, who retired in 1957, challenged this, arguing they had a right to rely on the Board's prior assurances. The court found in favor of the employees, holding that the Board was estopped from asserting a contrary position and that the employees were entitled to 20% of their base salary irrespective of Social Security benefits.

Retirement PlanEmployee BenefitsSocial Security IntegrationContractual RightsEstoppelVested RightsPension DisputeEmployer-Employee RelationsCompensationPlan Amendment
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 59 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