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

Anastasia v. Barnes

This case involves a wrongful death action where the defendant, New York Racing Association, Inc. (NYRA), and third-party defendant, Pinkerton’s New York Racing Security Service, Inc., moved to amend their answers. They sought to assert a setoff for pension and insurance benefits received by the plaintiff due to the decedent's death, invoking the "collateral source rule." The court, presided over by Justice Kenneth H. Lange, denied both motions. The decision delves into the nuances of the collateral source rule, distinguishing between gratuitous benefits and those part of employment compensation. It concludes that NYRA, not having contributed to the benefits, cannot assert them as a setoff, and Pinkerton’s, despite funding some benefits, cannot use them against an indemnification claim, prioritizing the tort-feasor's responsibility for compensation.

Wrongful DeathCollateral Source RuleSetoff DefenseLeave to Amend AnswerThird-Party LitigationIndemnification ClaimWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPension BenefitsInsurance BenefitsTort Law
References
20
Case No. T20140324, T20140325, M2017-01114-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2018

Angela Stevens v. State of Tennessee

Angela Stevens and her daughter Lanesia were injured in an automobile accident with a state employee. They filed a claim with the Claims Commission and were awarded damages for medical expenses, vehicle loss, and pain and suffering. The State of Tennessee appealed the award, contending that the collateral source rule, which prevents defendants from using discounted medical expense rates to reduce liability, was abrogated by Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(d). The Court of Appeals, referencing its recent decision in Estate of Tolbert v. State of Tennessee and the Supreme Court's ruling in Dedmon v. Steelman, affirmed the Claims Commission's decision, holding that the collateral source rule was not abrogated by the statute for personal injury actions before the Claims Commission. The court emphasized that 'actual damages' are synonymous with 'compensatory damages' and there was no clear legislative intent to deviate from this common law meaning.

Collateral Source RuleActual DamagesCompensatory DamagesState LiabilityPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentMedical ExpensesClaims Commission ActStatutory InterpretationCommon Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Normile v. Allstate Insurance

Chief Judge Cooke's dissenting opinion critiques the majority's interpretation of Insurance Law section 671 (subd 2, par [b]) regarding how collateral source payments affect an insurer's aggregate $50,000 liability for basic economic loss. The dissent argues that the majority's method, which allows insurers to reduce their total liability by these payments, leads to an incomplete recovery for injured parties, particularly when total losses exceed $50,000. Cooke proposes an alternative allocation where collateral source payments are first applied to cover losses beyond the $50,000 basic economic loss threshold. This approach, he contends, ensures that insurers pay the full $50,000 in first-party benefits and only take credit for collateral sources that would otherwise result in a double recovery within the basic economic loss limit, or for amounts exceeding the $50,000 threshold. The dissenting judge asserts that the Legislature did not intend to create such an inequity, where injured individuals are left with less than full compensation while insurers avoid their primary obligation.

Insurance Law InterpretationBasic Economic LossCollateral Source PaymentsNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security Disability BenefitsDissenting OpinionAggregate LiabilityFirst-Party BenefitsDouble Recovery
References
2
Case No. M2021-01193-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2023

Robert Crotty v. Mark Flora, M.D. (Concur in Part and Dissent in Part)

This is a dissenting opinion regarding an interlocutory appeal that centers on the interpretation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-119 and its impact on the collateral source rule in health care liability actions. The dissenting judge argues that this statute abrogates the collateral source rule, asserting that recoverable damages should be limited to the actual economic losses suffered, specifically the amounts actually paid by plaintiffs or their insurance, rather than the full, undiscounted medical bills. The opinion emphasizes that the statutory language, particularly "actual economic losses suffered" and "paid or payable," clearly supports this interpretation. Furthermore, it references legislative intent behind the Medical Malpractice Act, which aimed to control healthcare costs, as a rationale for a strict construction of the statute.

Medical MalpracticeCollateral Source RuleStatutory InterpretationHealth Care Liability ActActual Economic LossesDamagesInsurance LawPretrial OrdersTennessee Supreme CourtDissenting Opinion
References
27
Case No. M2017-00862-COA-R3-CV, T20140069, T20140070
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2018

In Re Estate of Sylvia Marene Tolbert v. State ot Tennessee

Claimants Sylvia Marlene Tolbert and Alvin Wayne Tindell asserted monetary claims against the State of Tennessee for personal injuries and property damage resulting from an automobile accident with a state employee. The Tennessee Claims Commission found the State liable and awarded compensatory damages based on the claimants’ unadjusted medical bills. The State appealed, arguing that the Claims Commission erred by not considering insurance adjustments to medical bills. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that the collateral source rule precludes the introduction of evidence of insurance adjustments and that the term 'actual damages' in the Tennessee Claims Commission Act is synonymous with 'compensatory damages', thus not abrogating the common law collateral source rule. Therefore, the unadjusted medical bills were properly used to calculate damages.

Collateral Source RuleMedical Expenses DamagesInsurance AdjustmentsTennessee Claims Commission ActPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentState Employee LiabilityCompensatory DamagesActual DamagesStatutory Abrogation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoffmann v. S.J. Hawk, Inc.

In an action seeking damages for personal injuries, the defendants initiated an appeal against two orders issued by the Supreme Court, Queens County. The first order, dated June 11, 1998, denied their motion for discovery related to earnings, no-fault benefits, and Workers’ Compensation benefits. The second order, dated September 14, 1998, rejected their request for the plaintiffs to provide authorization for obtaining Social Security Disability records. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in limiting collateral source discovery. The ruling referenced City of Mount Vernon v Lexington Ins. Co. as a general precedent.

DiscoveryCollateral Source RulePersonal Injury DamagesNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security DisabilityAppellate ProcedureEvidence RulesJudicial DiscretionCivil Procedure
References
2
Case No. 10-06-00236-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2008

Navasota Resources, L.P. v. First Source Texas, Inc., First Source Gas, LP, Gastar Exploration Texas, LLC F/K/A Bossier Basin, LLC, First Texas Gas, LP, First Source Bossier LLC, Gastar Exploration, LTD., Chesapeake Energy Corp., Chesapeake Exploration LP & Chesapeake Operating. Inc

Navasota Resources, L.P. initiated a lawsuit to enforce a preferential right clause within a joint operating agreement with First Source Texas, Inc. and related entities concerning oil and gas interests. The trial court granted summary judgment for First Source and Chesapeake Energy Corp., denying Navasota's motion. On appeal, the court examined whether the preferential right was triggered by a multi-asset 'package deal' and if Navasota was obligated to accept all additional terms. The appellate court determined that the preferential right was indeed invoked, and Navasota was not required to agree to unrelated conditions like stock purchases or entry into an Area of Mutual Interest. Consequently, the court found a binding contract was formed, the preferential right provision was not an unreasonable restraint on alienation, and rejected defenses of mistake or unconscionability. The judgment of the trial court was reversed, with judgment rendered in favor of Navasota for breach of contract and specific performance, and the case was remanded for determination of attorney's fees and revenues.

Oil and GasPreferential RightJoint Operating AgreementSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractSpecific PerformanceRestraint on AlienationPackage DealAppellate ReviewContractual Option
References
92
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelly v. Seager

This decision addresses the question of whether the collateral source rule, CPLR 4545 (c), limits the award an insurer may recover in a subrogation action. Nationwide Insurance Company, on behalf of its insureds Parker and Marian Kelly, sought to recover fire damages from defendants Diane Seager, Harold Taylor, and Janet Taylor. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing CPLR 4545 (c) should reduce the award by the amount Nationwide paid its insureds, citing the rule's aim to prevent double recovery. The court denied the motion, ruling that the insurer, Nationwide, is the real plaintiff in a subrogation action, not its insureds, and thus has not received reimbursement from a collateral source. The court concluded that applying CPLR 4545 (c) in this context would not advance the legislative goal of reducing insurance premiums and that the burden should remain with the tort-feasor's insurer.

Collateral Source RuleSubrogation ActionCPLR 4545 (c)Insurance LawSummary Judgment MotionFire DamageTort LawDouble RecoveryLegislative IntentStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. W2015-01462-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Jean Dedmon v. Debbie Steelman

The Tennessee Supreme Court granted an appeal to resolve whether its prior holding in West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp. applies to personal injury cases, specifically regarding the determination of 'reasonable medical expenses.' The Court clarified that the West decision, which defined 'reasonable charges' under the Hospital Lien Act, is limited to that statute and does not extend to personal injury claims. Upholding Tennessee's long-standing collateral source rule, the Court ruled that plaintiffs may present evidence of full, undiscounted medical bills as proof of reasonable expenses. Conversely, defendants are prohibited from introducing evidence of discounted rates accepted by medical providers due to the plaintiff's insurance, as such evidence contravenes the collateral source rule. The Court affirmed the appellate court's decision to allow full medical bills as evidence but reversed its stance on allowing defendants to introduce evidence of discounted payments to rebut reasonableness.

Personal InjuryCollateral Source RuleMedical ExpensesReasonable ChargesHospital Lien ActInsurance BenefitsTort LawDamagesAbrogation of RuleEvidentiary Rule
References
108
Case No. M2021-01193-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2022

Robert Crotty v. Mark Flora, M.D.

The case is an interlocutory appeal regarding a health care liability action against Dr. Mark Flora. The Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed two pretrial orders. First, it affirmed the trial court's exclusion of evidence suggesting a nonparty physician, Dr. Mitchell Wiatrak, was the cause-in-fact of the claimant's injuries, as Dr. Flora failed to amend his answer to plead comparative fault under Rule 8.03. Second, the Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-119 does not abrogate the common law collateral source rule in this instance, allowing the plaintiffs to present evidence of full, undiscounted medical expenses. The Court declined to overturn its precedent in George v. Alexander and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Medical MalpracticeHealth Care Liability ActComparative NegligenceCollateral Source Rule AbrogationPleading RequirementsAffirmative DefensesCausation EvidenceInterlocutory AppealsTennessee Civil ProcedureStatutory Construction
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 11,001 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