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
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jennings v. Minco Technology Labs, Inc.

Brenda L. Jennings sued her employer, Mineo Technology Labs, Inc., seeking to prevent the company from implementing a random drug-testing program for employees via urinalysis, arguing it violated common-law privacy rights. The company counterclaimed, asserting its plan was lawful. The trial court sided with the employer, declaring the plan lawful and enforceable, denying Jennings relief, and awarding attorney's fees to the company. On appeal, Jennings challenged both the lawfulness of the plan and the award of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, reasoning that 'at-will' employment allows employers to modify terms, and an employee's consent to testing, even if economically compelled, negates an unlawful invasion of privacy. The court also upheld the attorney's fees award, finding no abuse of discretion.

Employment LawDrug TestingPrivacy RightsAt-Will EmploymentDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefEmployer RightsEmployee RightsCommon LawContract Law
References
12
Case No. E2015-01256-COA-R3-JV-FILED-MAY 16, 2016
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2016

In re Mason E.

This case concerns an appeal by Father, Jody E., from a circuit court's finding of severe child abuse and the admission of his minor children's positive drug test results for methamphetamine. The Tennessee Department of Children's Services initiated proceedings after the children were found in a home associated with meth manufacturing. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the drug test results were admissible under the business records exception to hearsay and that sufficient clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that Father knowingly exposed his children to an environment likely to cause serious bodily injury or death, thus constituting severe child abuse.

Child AbuseMethamphetamine ExposureDrug TestingHair Follicle TestBusiness Records ExceptionHearsayExpert TestimonyConfrontation ClauseParental RightsDependency and Neglect
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

in the Interest of E.M. and J.M., Children

Jessica M. and Daniel M. appealed the judgment terminating their parental rights for children E.M. and J.M. Jessica raised issues regarding the admissibility of E.M.'s therapist statements, the legal and factual sufficiency of evidence for predicate grounds and best interest, and errors in jury instructions. Daniel challenged the admissibility of E.M.'s statements and the sufficiency of evidence for best interest. The court found E.M.'s statements, detailing abuse and neglect, to be admissible and reliable. Parental rights were terminated based on findings of endangerment through conditions, conduct, and failure to comply with court orders. Evidence included a domestic disturbance, K2 drug use allegations, positive drug tests, parental instability, and E.M.'s expressed fear. The court affirmed the jury's findings against Jessica. Daniel's sufficiency complaints were not preserved, and jury charge errors were overruled. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Abuse and NeglectHearsay EvidenceChild Therapist TestimonyDomestic ViolenceDrug AbuseSufficiency of EvidenceBest Interest of the ChildJury InstructionsAppellate Procedure
References
56
Case No. W2008-01649-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2009

John C. Blair v. Robert Sullivan, Jr.

This appeal concerns a negligence claim stemming from a motor vehicle accident between plaintiff John C. Blair and defendant Robert Sullivan, Jr. Blair appealed the trial court's decision, arguing errors in the admission of his positive drug test, the propriety of jury instructions, and the evidentiary support for the jury's comparative fault verdict. The appellate court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the drug test for issues of fault and credibility. It further determined that the jury instructions were proper and that material evidence supported the jury's finding of 50/50 comparative fault between the parties. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Negligence ClaimMotor Vehicle AccidentDrug Test AdmissibilityJury InstructionsComparative FaultAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionEvidence RelevanceProbative ValueTennessee Code Annotated
References
10
Case No. 2-05-227-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2006

Shioleno Industries, Inc. v. Texas Workforce Commission and Tommy Stroman

Shioleno Industries, Inc. appealed the trial court's judgment affirming the Texas Workforce Commission’s decision to award unemployment benefits to Tommy Stroman. Stroman was fired after a work injury, allegedly for failing to use an automatic feeder in violation of company safety policy, which he disputed. Shioleno argued the trial court erred by excluding evidence of Stroman's positive drug test and by ignoring evidence of workplace malpractice based on an employee warning notice. The Court of Appeals found no error in the exclusion of the drug test results, stating they were not presented to the Commission, and held that the warning notice was not a conclusive admission of wrongdoing. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding Stroman's unemployment benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsWorkplace SafetyEmployee TerminationDrug TestingSubstantial Evidence ReviewAdministrative DecisionTrial Court ErrorNewly Discovered EvidenceWorkplace MisconductAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. 01-A-01-9509-CV-00407; 95-C-67
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 1996

Evelene v. Stein v. Davidson Hotel Company

Evelene N. Stein appealed the dismissal of her wrongful discharge and invasion of privacy claims against Davidson Hotel Company, her former employer. Stein was terminated after a positive random drug test and argued that Davidson's termination policy violated her constitutional and common law rights to privacy and protection from unreasonable searches. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the wrongful discharge claim, holding that Tennessee's public policy favors drug-free workplaces and no clear public policy opposed drug-test-based termination. Regarding the invasion of privacy, the court found Stein failed to allege sufficient public disclosure of her drug test results. Additionally, the court concluded that Stein had implicitly waived her right to an intrusion into seclusion claim by consenting to the drug test and continuing her employment, thereby affirming the trial court's decision and remanding for any further necessary proceedings.

Wrongful DischargeEmployment-at-WillDrug Testing PolicyPublic Policy ViolationInvasion of PrivacyConstitutional RightsSearch and SeizureEmployee TerminationAppellate ReviewSummary Judgment Standard
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Theresa J. v. Patricia J.

This case involves an appeal in a neglect proceeding under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, where the respondent mother was accused of neglecting her three children due to drug misuse. Evidence presented included the mother testing positive for cocaine during childbirth, her admission to occasional cocaine use, and the premature birth and death of one child due to renal failure. While the majority found a prima facie case of neglect warranting a continued fact-finding hearing, the dissenting justice argued that a prima facie case was not established, citing a lack of proof for repeated drug misuse or a direct causal link between the mother's drug use and the child's impairment or death. Both the majority and dissent agreed to remand the case for further proceedings, especially considering a potential subsequent drug arrest of the respondent.

NeglectChild ProtectionDrug MisuseCocainePremature BirthInfant DeathPrima Facie CaseRemandFamily Court ActAppeal
References
0
Case No. 2017-07-0644
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2018

Polk, Ricky v. Delta Faucet

Ricky Polk sought medical benefits for a May 22, 2017, work-related injury, which Delta Faucet denied based on his alleged falsification of a drug test. Polk was terminated after a testing nurse discovered a concealed urine container during a drug test on June 7, 2018. The Court found that the drug test, administered sixteen days post-injury, did not adhere to the Tennessee Drug Free Workplace Program's timing requirements. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of Polk, stating he is entitled to medical benefits and ordered Delta Faucet to provide a panel of physicians for his evaluation.

Workers' CompensationDrug TestExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsFalsificationEmployee TerminationDFWPTennessee LawProximate CausePanel of Physicians
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coleman v. Town of Hempstead

Plaintiff Paul Coleman, an employee of the Town of Hempstead Department of Sanitation, was suspended for 24 days after failing a random drug test he alleges was flawed. He filed claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for procedural and substantive due process violations, along with state law claims for negligence and malpractice, against the Town, its officials, and various private entities involved in the drug testing, including Medical Review Officers (MROs) and a laboratory. Defendants University Services (an MRO) and LabCorp Laboratories (the testing lab) moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing they are private entities not acting under color of state law for the § 1983 claims, and that LabCorp owed no duty to the plaintiff for the negligence claim. The Court denied both motions, finding that the plaintiff adequately alleged that LabCorp and University Services acted under color of state law, either through a close-nexus or symbiotic relationship with the Town. Regarding the negligence claim against LabCorp, the Court determined that New York law would recognize a common law duty of care owed by a drug testing laboratory to an employee in such circumstances, due to the significant and potentially devastating consequences of a false-positive drug test.

Drug TestingWorkplace Drug TestingDue Process ViolationSection 1983 ClaimNegligence ClaimMedical MalpracticeState Action DoctrinePrivate Entity LiabilityMotion to DismissUrine Sample
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 2,324 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