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

Baines v. Wilson County

Roy Baines, a former firefighter and ambulance driver, sued Wilson County, Wilson Emergency Management Agency (WEMA), and his supervisor, David Hale, for retaliatory discharge after being fired following a workers' compensation claim. The trial court dismissed the suit, ruling that Wilson County and WEMA were immune under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) and that Baines failed to establish a prima facie case against Hale because Hale was not his employer. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concurring that governmental entities are immune from common law retaliatory discharge claims under the GTLA, and that a supervisor cannot be held individually liable for retaliatory discharge unless they are the actual employer.

Retaliatory DischargeGovernmental ImmunityTennessee Governmental Tort Liability ActWorkers' Compensation ClaimAt-Will Employment DoctrineSupervisor LiabilityMotion to DismissCommon Law TortAppellate ReviewPrima Facie Case
References
18
Case No. M2007-01589-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2008

Anthony Sircy and Anethesiologists Professional Assurance Company v. Jerry Wilson

This case involves an appeal by Anesthesiologists' Professional Assurance Company (APAC), a workers' compensation carrier, challenging a trial court's decision to award one-third of a personal injury settlement as attorney fees to the injured employee's counsel. Anthony Sircy, the employee, suffered injuries in an automobile accident and received workers' compensation benefits. Sircy subsequently settled his personal injury claim against Jerry Wilson, the other driver, for $25,000. APAC, as an intervening plaintiff with a subrogation lien, disputed the apportionment of attorney fees from this settlement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, which granted Sircy's counsel $8,333.33 of the settlement as their fee, finding their efforts were solely responsible for securing the recovery and that the trial court's apportionment was proper under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-112(b).

Workers' CompensationAttorney FeesSubrogationApportionment of FeesPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentTrial Court ReviewStatutory InterpretationAppellate PracticeUninsured Motorist
References
7
Case No. ADJ11171496; ADJ3047881
Regular
May 19, 2025

DAVID ANTHONY WILSON vs. CITY OF POMONA; ADMINSURE, CITY OF LOS ANGELES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision addresses a clerical error found in its previous decision from May 15, 2025. The original decision erroneously included Joseph V. Capurro, Commissioner, as a panel member. The current order formally corrects this error by removing Commissioner Capurro's name, without the need for reconsideration. The underlying case involved David Anthony Wilson as the applicant against the City of Pomona, AdminSure, and the City of Los Angeles, with adjudication numbers ADJ11171496 and ADJ3047881, originating from the Pomona District Office. The original May 15, 2025 decision was an Opinion and Order Dismissing Petition For Removal, issued after the petitioner withdrew their request for removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClerical Error CorrectionOpinion and OrderPetition for RemovalJoseph V. CapurroCommissionerDavid Anthony WilsonCity of PomonaCity of Los AngelesAdjudication Numbers
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollock v. Wilson

The Supreme Court properly denied defendant David C. Wilson's motion to renew or vacate a prior order that granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs. The court determined that the defendant failed to provide reasonable justification for introducing new facts on the motion to renew. Additionally, the defendant did not demonstrate any misrepresentation in plaintiff Paul A. Pollock's affidavit, which was crucial for the motion to vacate. The court also correctly struck the defendant's affirmative defense, which asserted that the action was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provisions. It was established that the plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant at the time of the accident, thus nullifying the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentMotion to RenewMotion to VacateMisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate ReviewAffirmative Defense
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anthony v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

This case addresses the liability of Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) as an "owner" under Labor Law § 240. The plaintiff, David Anthony, an employee of Richards "Of Course", was injured after falling from a billboard located on Conrail's right-of-way. The billboard had been mistakenly believed to be on Martisco Plumbing Corporation's property, which collected rent for it. The court found no evidence of Conrail's awareness, consent, or benefit from the billboard, nor any control over the work site. Citing precedent, the court determined that Conrail did not have the requisite nexus to the work or the structure to be considered an "owner" under the statute, and therefore dismissed the claims against it.

Labor Law § 240Owner LiabilityConstruction AccidentBillboard FallRight-of-WayTrespasser StatusLease AgreementThird-Party LiabilityPremises LiabilityProperty Ownership Dispute
References
4
Case No. M2005-02719-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2010

Wilson County Board of Education v. Wilson County Education Association and Steve Johnson

An assistant principal, Steve Johnson, was transferred to a teaching position by the Wilson County Board of Education. He, along with the Wilson County Education Association, grieved the transfer under a locally negotiated agreement. After the grievance was denied through internal steps, they sought to compel arbitration in the Chancery Court for Wilson County. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Board, concluding that assistant principals are statutorily similar to principals, giving the director of schools unrestrained authority to transfer them. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the trial court's judgment, but on different grounds. The appellate court held that despite the agreement mentioning "binding arbitration," it also stated that the arbitrator "may recommend" remedies, creating an inconsistency that prevented a "meeting of the minds" on the final resolution procedure, thus rendering the arbitration agreement unenforceable.

Education Professional Negotiations ActGrievance ProcedureArbitration AgreementMeeting of the MindsContract InterpretationTeacher TransferAssistant PrincipalStatutory AuthoritySchool Board PowersBinding vs. Advisory Arbitration
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Moysello v. David

The claimant, a taxicab driver for David’s Taxi and David Enterprises, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in January 2007. An investigation by the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that Charles David and David Enterprises were the uninsured "true owners" and employers. A workers’ compensation law judge found them to be employers and uninsured, a decision affirmed by the Board, which found they met the presumptive definition of employer under Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (former [3]) and had proper jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that proper notice of the hearing was received despite competing address claims.

Motor Vehicle AccidentTaxicab DriverEmployer DefinitionUninsured EmployerWorkers' Compensation LawNotice of HearingBoard ReviewAppellate DecisionSubstantial EvidenceCorporate Ownership
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Wilson

Dorothy S. Wilson, as executrix of the estate of Leonard R. Wilson, filed a petition for discovery against Lee Ford concerning the proceeds of Leonard R. Wilson's retirement plan, which named Ford as the beneficiary. Mr. Wilson died in 1985, having a vested benefit in the Corporate Profit Sharing Plan and Trust Agreement for Cobblestone Enterprises, Inc. The court considered the 1984 amendments to ERISA requiring a qualified preretirement survivor annuity (QPSA) for surviving spouses. Despite the plan's amendment occurring after Mr. Wilson's death, a transition rule mandated the QPSA amendments be treated as in effect at the time of death. The court, citing no New York authority, concluded that given the Cobblestone plan was a 'defined benefit plan' and under the ERISA transition rule, Dorothy S. Wilson, as the surviving spouse, was entitled to the entire $8,643.38 proceeds of the retirement plan.

ERISARetirement PlanQualified Preretirement Survivor AnnuityQPSADefined Benefit PlanTransition RuleSurviving SpouseBeneficiary DisputeEstateProbate
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. Wilson

This Supreme Court opinion addresses whether a private attorney representing the beneficiary of a court order in a civil case may prosecute a criminal contempt action alleging a violation of that order. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' automatic disqualification rule, holding that neither constitutional principles nor ethical standards in Tennessee automatically preclude such representation. The decision distinguishes itself from the federal Young case, highlighting differences in prosecutorial powers and the existence of judicial oversight through procedural rules like Tenn. R.Crim. P. 42(b) and Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11. The Court emphasized that a private litigant's interest in enforcing a court order often coincides with the court's authority, and that judicial scrutiny safeguards against abuse.

Contempt of CourtCriminal ContemptPrivate CounselProsecutorial DiscretionJudicial EthicsDue ProcessAppellate ReviewDivorce ProceedingsTennessee Supreme CourtLegal Representation
References
27
Case No. 06-05-00095-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2006

Pilgrim`s Pride Corporation and David Franklin Sharp, Jr. v. David Cernat and Joseph Ciupitu

This case involves a motor vehicle accident where David Cernat and Joseph Ciupitu were rear-ended by a truck driven by David Franklin Sharp, Jr., for Pilgrim's Pride Corporation. The jury found Pilgrim's Pride 50% responsible and each plaintiff 25% responsible. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's application of comparative negligence statutes (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 33.012, 33.013). It found that the trial court erred in calculating damages and modified the judgment, reducing the awards for Cernat and Ciupitu to correctly apply the comparative negligence principles. The court also affirmed the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's awards for lost earning capacity and future medical damages.

Motor Vehicle AccidentComparative NegligenceDamages CalculationAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyLost Earning CapacityFuture Medical ExpensesPersonal InjuryStatutory Interpretation
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 1,531 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