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. Shelby Circuit No. 149721 R.D., Appeal No. 02A01-9803-CV-00059
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 1999

Annette Willis Clay v. Kerry Clay

The case involves an appeal from a divorce judgment between Annette Willis Clay (Wife) and Kerry Clay (Husband). The Wife appealed the trial court's decision regarding the division of her retirement benefit, the award of a small portion of the Husband's workers' compensation settlement to her, and the failure to award child support from the Husband's workers' compensation settlement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment on the division of pensions due to insufficient record evidence. However, the court reversed and remanded the decisions concerning the division of the Husband's workers' compensation award as marital property and its consideration as income for child support, instructing the trial court to recalculate these aspects based on a periodic payment equivalent.

Divorce LawMarital Property DivisionWorkers' Compensation BenefitsChild Support ObligationLump Sum SettlementAppellate ProcedurePension DivisionIncome AssignmentJudicial ReviewFamily Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Stecher Aviation Services, Inc. (Commr. of Labor)

Stecher Aviation Services, Inc., a company providing aircraft flight crews, was assessed for unemployment insurance contributions for its flight crews by the Department of Labor. Stecher Aviation argued that its flight crews were independent contractors, but an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found an employer-employee relationship existed. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence supporting the employer-employee relationship, including Stecher Aviation's control over crew selection, billing, payment rates, and provision of workers' compensation insurance. The court also rejected Stecher Aviation's claim of an unfair hearing due to the tax auditor's absence, as the supervisor, familiar with the investigation, was available to testify.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewDepartment of LaborUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardFlight CrewWorkers' Compensation InsuranceFair Hearing
References
6
Case No. M2015-02217-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2016

Deborah Lacy v. HCA Tristar Hendersonville Hospital

This appeal concerns Deborah Lacy's case following an involuntary dismissal under Rule 41.02(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Lacy, a pro se litigant, sued Hendersonville Hospital Corporation and its employees for assault and battery during her employment. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to the Hospital, finding the Workers' Compensation Law as Lacy's sole remedy. Following the close of Lacy's proof, the remaining defendants moved for involuntary dismissal, which was granted due to a lack of evidence for damages. The Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal and remanded the case, citing the trial court's failure to make specific findings of fact and to approve a statement of the evidence as required by appellate rules.

Involuntary DismissalPro Se LitigantAppellate ProcedureStatement of EvidenceFactual FindingsRemandAssault and BatteryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentCausation and Damages
References
7
Case No. 12-1227-cec
Regular Panel Decision

Schroeder v. Global Aviation Holdings, Inc. (In re Global Aviation Holdings, Inc.)

This case addresses a motion for summary judgment filed by Global Aviation Holdings, Inc. and World Airways, Inc. (Defendants) against former airline pilots (Plaintiffs). The Plaintiffs alleged a violation of the WARN Act due to a "mass layoff" without required 60-day notice, claiming the Kansas City, Missouri airport (KMCI) served as their "single site of employment." Defendants countered that KMCI was only a theoretical base for payment calculations and lacked any physical presence or operational connection to their pilots. The Court, citing precedent requiring physical connection for a "home base" under WARN Act regulations, ruled that KMCI did not qualify as a "single site of employment." Therefore, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the adversary proceedings.

WARN ActMass LayoffSingle Site of EmploymentSummary JudgmentFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureFederal Rules of Bankruptcy ProcedureAirline PilotsFurloughBankruptcyCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
8
Case No. 2015-06-0977
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2019

Clay, Sharee v. Signature Healthcare

Ms. Clay, a CNA for Signature Healthcare, sustained neck and shoulder injuries while assisting a patient. Signature initially denied her workers' compensation claim, asserting her injuries were due to a prior car accident or pre-existing degenerative conditions. The Court found Ms. Clay's injuries were primarily work-related, crediting the testimony of Dr. Lanford and Dr. West. The Court ordered Signature Healthcare to provide ongoing medical treatment for her work-related injuries and pay her $20,731.50 in permanent partial disability benefits and $580.71 in temporary total disability benefits, totaling $21,312.21.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryNeck InjuryCausationMedical TestimonyImpairment RatingDisability BenefitsTreating PhysicianIndependent Medical ExaminationCar Accident
References
6
Case No. W2023-00519-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2024

Kerry Clay v. City of Memphis Sanitation Division

Kerry Clay, a home improvement contractor, sustained a head injury when a discarded door, which he had placed for collection, was loaded into a City of Memphis garbage truck compactor and struck him. Clay sued the City under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), alleging negligence by City employees. The trial court found the City liable, awarding damages that were subsequently reduced to the statutory cap of $300,000. On appeal, the City challenged various factual findings, including fault allocation, proof of negligence, employee identification, and damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence did not preponderate against the initial findings.

Governmental Tort Liability ActNegligenceComparative FaultPersonal InjuryHead InjuryDamages CapScope of EmploymentPreponderance of EvidenceAppellate ReviewMedical Evidence Admissibility
References
21
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05690
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2023

Medina v. Jet Aviation Holdings USA, Inc.

Plaintiff Paul Medina, a delivery person, suffered a head injury while loading humanitarian cargo onto an airplane in a New Jersey hangar. He initiated a personal injury lawsuit against various entities including Jet Aviation Holdings USA, Inc., and Third Point LLC, alleging negligence in hangar operation and his direction. The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed appeals concerning two Supreme Court orders regarding motions to dismiss. The court unanimously reversed the denial of dismissal for the Jet Aviation defendants, granting their motion due to a lack of personal jurisdiction over the foreign subsidiary and its parent companies. The court also unanimously modified the denial of dismissal for Daniel S. Loeb, Third Point LLC, and Teragram, LLC, granting dismissal against Loeb and Teragram for insufficient pleading and lack of duty, respectively, but affirmed the denial against Third Point LLC regarding potential vicarious liability.

Personal InjuryJurisdictionVicarious LiabilitySpecial Employee DoctrineCorporate VeilMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewNegligenceParent Company LiabilityCorporate Officer Liability
References
9
Case No. 06-11-00198-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2011

in Re: Stephen Clay Johnston

Stephen Clay Johnston filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, claiming innocence for charges leading to his incarceration and alleging that the trial court failed to respond to his motions for 86 days. The Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana denied the petition, affirming that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and that Johnston failed to provide proper grounds or identify the respondent, rendering his petition unintelligible. The court emphasized that it is the petitioner's burden to show entitlement to mandamus relief. Due to the lack of clarity regarding the motions' substance and the unnamed respondent, the court found the petition insufficient for the requested extraordinary relief.

MandamusWrit of MandamusPro Se PetitionIncarcerationAbuse of DiscretionExtraordinary RemedyAppellate ProcedureTexas Court of AppealsPetition DenialJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. ADJ250092
Regular
May 16, 2013

VAROUJAN PEHLEVANIAN vs. CLAY LACY AVIATION, CHARTIS

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendant, Chartis, in a workers' compensation matter. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition as untimely because it was not filed within the statutory 20-day period plus 5 days for mailing after the Order Approving Compromise and Release on November 19, 2012. The WCAB also stated that even if the petition had been timely, it would have been denied based on the administrative law judge's report. Therefore, the WCAB's order is a dismissal of the defendant's reconsideration request due to procedural defects.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissalCompromise and ReleaseLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013Administrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationService
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05697
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2021

Hensel v. Aviator FSC, Inc.

The plaintiff, Michael Hensel, sustained personal injuries when a heavy soccer board slid off a forklift and struck him while he was loading boards onto a truck. He initiated an action against Aviator FSC, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability under that section. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order, concluding that the disassembly and removal of the soccer boards constituted 'demolition' and 'altering' within the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court further found that the plaintiff's injury resulted from an elevation-related hazard, exacerbated by the defendant's failure to provide adequate safety devices on the modified forklift.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentPersonal InjuryElevation-related HazardDemolition WorkForklift AccidentAppellate ReviewSafety DevicesStatutory InterpretationAbsolute Liability
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 110 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