Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 2014-01-0002

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 04, 2016

Howard, Denita U.S. Express, Inc.

Denita Howard's claim against U.S. Xpress, Inc., and Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. was dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The employee failed to participate in the Initial (Scheduling) Hearing, did not file a written statement confirming her intent to prosecute the claim as ordered, and made insufficient efforts to obtain a medical expert opinion on permanent impairment, despite knowing her authorized treating physician, Dr. Galipudi, found no permanent impairment. The Court cited its discretion to manage its docket and the importance of participation in scheduled hearings, ultimately finding that Ms. Howard failed to prosecute her claim in a reasonable manner.

Failure to ProsecuteDismissal with PrejudiceInitial HearingScheduling OrderPermanent ImpairmentMedical Expert OpinionWorkers' Compensation Judge DiscretionTennessee Rules of Civil ProcedureExpedited HearingAttorney Representation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Texas Sting, Ltd. v. R.B. Foods, Inc.

Appellants, Texas Sting, Ltd. and Michael Konderla, appealed the denial of their motion for new trial, seeking to set aside a dismissal for want of prosecution and a default judgment. They contended they received no notice of either the dismissal docket setting or the trial on R.B. Foods’s counterclaims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal for want of prosecution, noting that appellants had a post-dismissal hearing but failed to present evidence of diligent prosecution. However, the court reversed the default judgment, finding that appellants' failure to appear was not intentional or consciously indifferent due to the clerk mailing notices to an incorrect, outdated address. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on R.B. Foods’s counterclaims.

Dismissal for Want of ProsecutionDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialNotice RequirementsDue ProcessAbuse of DiscretionCraddock TestAppellate ProcedureTexas Civil ProcedureRemand

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

MacTaggart v. Gibbs & Cox. Inc.

This appeal concerns the dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute for over five years. The plaintiffs' primary excuse for the delay was their involvement in another litigation concerning similar issues. However, the court found that the issues in the two cases were not identical, and a significant period of a year and a half elapsed after the conclusion of the prior litigation without any further action on the present case. The court also considered the prejudice to the defendant, noting the difficulty and impracticability of recouping extra costs from clients related to contracts completed between February 1944 and December 1945. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of the action.

failure to prosecutedismissal of actionappellate reviewdiscretionary powerprejudice to defendantdelay in litigationstipulationsamended complaintnote of issueextra compensation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Ozuna v. Southwest Bio-Clinical Laboratories

Plaintiff Daisy Ozuna appealed the dismissal of her lawsuit against Southwest Bio-Clinical Laboratories for want of prosecution. She contended that the dismissal was an abuse of discretion and that any failure to litigate her case with due diligence was caused by her previous attorneys. The trial court had dismissed the case for both failure to appear at the dismissal hearing and lack of due diligence in prosecution. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the trial court acted within its discretion regarding the lack of diligence. The court also clarified that Rule 165a(3)'s reinstatement provision, applicable to failures to appear, does not apply to dismissals based on a lack of diligent prosecution.

dismissalwant of prosecutionappellate reviewabuse of discretiondue diligenceattorney responsibilityTexas Civil ProcedureRule 165a interpretationreinstatement of caseworkers' compensation claim

References

Case No. 2014-05-0015

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 13, 2015

Sachs, William v. Johnson Controls

William Sachs filed a Petition for Benefit Determination seeking workers' compensation benefits for a neck and shoulder injury allegedly suffered during his employment with Johnson Controls. Johnson Controls initially paid temporary disability and medical benefits but later denied the claim on causation grounds. Due to Mr. Sachs' repeated failure to comply with court orders, including not responding to discovery and failing to disclose expert witnesses, Johnson Controls filed a Motion to Dismiss. The Court granted the motion, dismissing Mr. Sachs' claim without prejudice, citing Rule 41.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.

Workers' CompensationMotion to DismissFailure to ProsecuteDiscovery SanctionsExpert Witness DisclosureTennessee Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41.02Pro Se LitigantEmployer DefenseCausation DisputeWorkers' Compensation Claim

References

Case No. 2016-01-0439

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 21, 2017

Swafford, Michael v. Morristown Drives Service, Inc.

This case involved Michael T. Swafford, Employee, against Morristown Drivers Service, Inc., Employer, and Cherokee Ins. Co., Carrier. The claim was heard on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Morristown Drivers Service, Inc. The central issue was Mr. Swafford’s repeated failure to file for a hearing as required by law and court orders, despite multiple extensions. The Court considered the motion as a Motion to Dismiss for failure to prosecute pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02(1). Consequently, the Court dismissed Mr. Swafford's claim with prejudice to its refiling due to his non-compliance.

Failure to prosecuteDismissal with prejudiceWorkers' Compensation LawCourt ordersShow Cause HearingDispute Certification NoticeStatus ConferenceProcedural non-complianceFiling feesJudicial discretion

References

Case No. ADJ8220705

Regular

Mar 10, 2014

DAVID PORRAS vs. KEMPER SPORTS MANAGEMENT, INC., DBA RIDGE CREEK GOLF CLUB, NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration of a procedural order dismissing their lien for failure to appear at a conference. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely because it was not filed from a final order, as the initial order was a conditional dismissal. The Board, on its own motion, has removed the case to impose sanctions of $500 against the lien claimant and their representatives for repeated frivolous filings and failure to prosecute, citing prior similar conduct.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationDismissing LienExcusable NeglectCalendaring ErrorFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderRemovalSanctions

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Paisley v. Coin Device Corp.

Plaintiffs Dougal Paisley and Rohan Christie, employees of Coin Device Corporation, were terminated after being arrested for missing money, despite charges being dismissed. They subsequently filed an action against Coin Device Corporation, Biju Thomas, and Brian Gibbons, alleging malicious prosecution, wrongful termination, negligence, and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss these claims. On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, ruling that the defendants were not liable for malicious prosecution as they merely provided information to the police, who made the arrest decision. Furthermore, the court found the wrongful termination claims invalid due to the plaintiffs' at-will employment status, and the negligence claims barred by Workers' Compensation Law, leading to the dismissal of all specified claims against the appellants.

malicious prosecutionwrongful terminationnegligenceloss of consortiumpunitive damagesat-will employmentWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211appealemployer liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Munno v. Town of Orangetown

Plaintiff Ennio Munno, a police officer, initiated this federal action against the Town of Orangetown and various officials, alleging wrongful suspension without pay. Munno claimed violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, asserting both property and liberty interests, and also brought a state law claim for malicious prosecution against Kevin Nulty, the chief of police. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, granted the defendants' motion. The decision concluded that Munno was afforded adequate due process prior to and during his suspension, and that he failed to establish the "stigma-plus" standard required for a liberty interest violation due to lack of defamation publication or termination of employment. Consequently, with the federal claims dismissed, the court declined to exercise pendant jurisdiction over the state law malicious prosecution claim, dismissing it without prejudice.

Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentPolice MisconductSuspensionMotion to DismissMalicious ProsecutionStigma-PlusProperty InterestLiberty InterestFederal Civil Procedure

References

Case No. VNO 0419782

Regular

May 05, 2008

BARBARA TOLBERT vs. 20TH CENTURY FOX, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

Lien claimants sought reconsideration of an administrative law judge's notice to disallow their liens due to failure to prosecute. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition, ruling that the notice was an interlocutory order, not a final decision, and thus not subject to reconsideration. The lien claimants' failure to provide an explanation for their absence at the scheduled trial also contributed to the dismissal.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalLack of ProsecutionLien ClaimantsNotice of Intention to DisallowWCJCompromise and ReleaseInterlocutory OrdersFinal Order

References

Showing 1-10 of 18,687 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 2014-01-0002

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 04, 2016

Howard, Denita U.S. Express, Inc.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Texas Sting, Ltd. v. R.B. Foods, Inc.

Dismissal for Want of ProsecutionDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialNotice RequirementsDue ProcessAbuse of DiscretionCraddock TestAppellate ProcedureTexas Civil ProcedureRemand

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

MacTaggart v. Gibbs & Cox. Inc.

failure to prosecutedismissal of actionappellate reviewdiscretionary powerprejudice to defendantdelay in litigationstipulationsamended complaintnote of issueextra compensation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Ozuna v. Southwest Bio-Clinical Laboratories

dismissalwant of prosecutionappellate reviewabuse of discretiondue diligenceattorney responsibilityTexas Civil ProcedureRule 165a interpretationreinstatement of caseworkers' compensation claim

References

Case No. 2014-05-0015

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 13, 2015

Sachs, William v. Johnson Controls

References

Case No. 2016-01-0439

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 21, 2017

Swafford, Michael v. Morristown Drives Service, Inc.

Failure to prosecuteDismissal with prejudiceWorkers' Compensation LawCourt ordersShow Cause HearingDispute Certification NoticeStatus ConferenceProcedural non-complianceFiling feesJudicial discretion

References

Case No. ADJ8220705

Regular

Mar 10, 2014

DAVID PORRAS vs. KEMPER SPORTS MANAGEMENT, INC., DBA RIDGE CREEK GOLF CLUB, NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationDismissing LienExcusable NeglectCalendaring ErrorFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderRemovalSanctions

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Paisley v. Coin Device Corp.

malicious prosecutionwrongful terminationnegligenceloss of consortiumpunitive damagesat-will employmentWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211appealemployer liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Munno v. Town of Orangetown

Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentPolice MisconductSuspensionMotion to DismissMalicious ProsecutionStigma-PlusProperty InterestLiberty InterestFederal Civil Procedure

References

Case No. VNO 0419782

Regular

May 05, 2008

BARBARA TOLBERT vs. 20TH CENTURY FOX, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalLack of ProsecutionLien ClaimantsNotice of Intention to DisallowWCJCompromise and ReleaseInterlocutory OrdersFinal Order

References

Showing 1-10 of 18,687 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.