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

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

Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority v. Bradley County

This case addresses whether Bradley County is liable for the medical expenses of Brandon Ramsey, who was injured in a shooting and treated at Erlanger Health System. Ramsey was subject to a 'police hold' but was never formally arrested or confined in the county jail during his hospitalization. The Tennessee Supreme Court, interpreting Tenn.Code Ann. § 41-4-115, determined that the statute only obligates counties to provide medical care for 'prisoners confined in the jail.' As Ramsey did not meet this criterion, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and dismissed Erlanger's complaint. The Court also overruled a prior Court of Appeals case, Erlanger I, which had expanded the meaning of 'confined in the jail' to include police custody.

Medical ExpensesCounty LiabilityStatutory InterpretationPolice CustodyPrisoner Medical CareDue ProcessEighth AmendmentHospital BillingSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. E2014-00302-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2015

American Heritage Apartments, Inc. v. The Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority, Hamilton County, Tennessee

The plaintiff, American Heritage Apartments, Inc., challenged a monthly flat charge imposed by the Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority (County WWTA) for sewer lateral repairs. The trial court granted summary judgment to the County WWTA, finding no private right of action under the Utility District Law of 1937 (UDL). On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, concluding the UDL was inapplicable as the County WWTA was formed under the Tennessee Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority Act (WWTA Act). The appellate court held that the WWTA Act implicitly provides a private right of action for ultra vires and contract claims. The court also affirmed the trial court's alternative ruling that class action certification for affected customers was appropriate.

Water UtilityWastewater TreatmentFlat Rate ChargeClass Action CertificationSummary Judgment ReversalPrivate Right of ActionUltra Vires ClaimGovernmental ImmunityUtility District LawWater and Wastewater Treatment Authority Act
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alexander A. Stratienko, M. D. v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority

This appellate opinion affirms the trial court's judgments in a long-standing case stemming from a 2004 incident where Dr. Stratienko pushed another doctor at Erlanger Hospital. Dr. Stratienko, the plaintiff, appealed several decisions: the granting of partial summary judgment to Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority on claims of breach of contract, inducement of breach, conspiracy, and immunity; the denial of further complaint amendments and discovery; the exclusion of administrative hearing claims; and the finding that he failed to prove intentional interference with business relations. The Court of Appeals found no error, applying the 'law of the case' doctrine for facts previously established in federal courts and upholding the trial court's discretionary rulings. Specifically, the court affirmed that the plaintiff failed to establish the elements for intentional interference with business relations, noting a lack of proof regarding specific third parties, improper means or motive, and demonstrable damages.

Medical DisputesHospital Authority LiabilityBusiness InterferenceAppellate Court ProcedureSummary Judgment StandardPleading AmendmentsDiscovery DisputesLaw of the Case DoctrineMedical PrivilegesEconomic Damages
References
35
Case No. E2016-02169-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2017

Jerry L. Lawrence v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority

The case involves an appeal stemming from an employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by former employees of a hospital's Security Services Department against the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority. The plaintiffs alleged age and racial discrimination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act, as well as common law retaliatory discharge. The trial court had granted summary judgment to the hospital defendants, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for their claims and that some claims were barred by severance agreements. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the dismissal of the discrimination and retaliation claims and rejecting the appellants' hearsay arguments. The court reiterated that the employees failed to demonstrate they were replaced or treated differently than non-protected individuals, which is essential for a prima facie case.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas Burden-ShiftingTennessee Human Rights ActEmployment-at-Will DoctrineSeverance Agreements
References
43
Case No. 1:95-CV-312
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 1996

Coffey v. CHATTANOOGA-HAMILTON CTY. HOSP. AUTH.

Glenn and Diane Coffey filed a lawsuit against Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority (EMC) and individual defendants, alleging retaliatory discharge and outrageous conduct. Glenn Coffey claimed constructive discharge after reporting a colleague's illegal activities and poor work habits to supervisors, alleging a conspiracy to silence him. Defendants moved for partial dismissal of the claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss the retaliatory discharge claim against all defendants, citing EMC's immunity under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act and the statute's employer-specific liability. Furthermore, the outrageous conduct claim against EMC was dismissed due to governmental immunity. However, the motion to dismiss the outrageous conduct claim against the individual defendants was denied, with plaintiffs granted leave to amend their complaint for this specific claim.

Retaliatory DischargeOutrageous ConductGovernmental Tort LiabilitySovereign ImmunityMotion to DismissConstructive DischargeEmployee Whistleblower ProtectionIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployer LiabilityIndividual Liability
References
25
Case No. E2003-03028-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2005

Noel and Josephine Crawley v. Hamilton County, Tennessee

Plaintiffs Noel and Josephine Crawley sued Hamilton County after Noel, a corrections officer, was injured due to another officer's negligence. Hamilton County, which did not participate in the state's workers' compensation program, provided its own on-the-job injury policy, arguing it was the exclusive remedy for such injuries. The Circuit Court initially granted summary judgment to the county, agreeing that the policy's benefits, which Noel Crawley had received, precluded further action. However, the Court of Appeals vacated this decision, ruling that the county's policy could not override rights granted by the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA). The appellate court emphasized that any local policy conflicting with a state law of general application, particularly one that takes away a state-granted right to sue, is invalid.

Summary judgmentWorkers' compensationExclusive remedyGovernmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA)Fringe benefitsNegligenceStatutory constructionMunicipal ordinance conflictAppellate reviewVacated and remanded
References
7
Case No. E2014-02215-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2015

Estate of Walter Bradley by Next of Kin, Irene King v. Hamilton County

Mr. Bradley, a prisoner in Hamilton County Jail, died from tuberculosis in October 2012, seven months after being incarcerated, during which he was in and out of medical facilities for poor health. His sister, Irene King, sued Hamilton County for wrongful death and negligence under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, later adding a claim for emotional distress. The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling the claims were health care liability actions requiring specific pre-suit notices and good faith certificates under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (HCLA), which the sister failed to provide. On appeal, the Court affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that the claims constituted health care liability actions because they concerned the adequacy and appropriateness of medical care, not merely access to care. The Court further found that the County had not waived its defense of non-compliance with HCLA prerequisites and that the emotional distress claim also fell under HCLA.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceGovernmental Tort Liability ActHealth Care Liability ActInmate Medical CareTuberculosisFailure to DiagnosePre-suit NoticeAppellate ReviewSummary Judgment
References
33
Case No. 06-22-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2022

Cynthia Martin v. Hopkins County, Hopkins County Judge Robert Newsom, Hopkins County Commissioner Mickey Barker, Hopkins County Commissioner Greg Anglin, Hopkins County Commissioner Wade Bartley, and Hopkins County Commissioner Joe Price

Cynthia Martin raised ultra vires claims against Hopkins County officials regarding an agreement with a private company to build a solar power plant. Martin contended the agreement was a tax abatement under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 381, Section 381.004(g), which she argued did not comply with the Texas Tax Code provisions. The County and officials asserted the agreement was a grant of public money under Section 381.004(h), thus not governed by the Texas Tax Code. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the agreement was for a grant of public funds, not a tax abatement, because the developer was obligated to pay all ad valorem taxes, and the payments from the county were program grants calculated with reference to those paid taxes, not a reduction or nullification of the tax liability itself.

Ultra Vires ClaimsEconomic Development AgreementTax AbatementPublic Funds GrantTexas Local Government Code Chapter 381Texas Tax Code Chapter 312Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract ConstructionStatutory Construction
References
39
Case No. 13-14-00293-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2015

San Patricio County, Texas v. Nueces County, Texas and Nueces County Appraisal District

This is a reply brief filed by San Patricio County, Texas, in an appeal against Nueces County and Nueces County Appraisal District. The core issue revolves around unresolved boundary disputes between the two counties, leading to double taxation for industrial taxpayers like Occidental Petroleum Company. San Patricio County argues that the Nueces County District Court lacked jurisdiction and venue, and erred in granting summary judgment without determining the boundary line. They assert that the 2003 Judgment, which declared 'natural and artificial modifications to the shoreline of San Patricio County shall form a part of San Patricio County,' includes docks, piers, and similar facilities as part of their county, consistent with maritime law and riparian rights. The county seeks reversal of the trial court's decision, either for transfer back to a neutral Refugio County District Court, or for a judgment declaring the disputed properties within San Patricio County's jurisdiction, or for a remand to resolve factual issues concerning the boundary.

County Boundary DisputeJurisdictionVenueSummary JudgmentCollateral Attack2003 Judgment InterpretationShoreline ModificationsDocks and PiersRiparian RightsTaxation Dispute
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 6,717 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