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

Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Food & Drug Administration

This Memorandum and Order addresses several motions in a case brought by environmental and public interest groups against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The plaintiffs sought to compel the FDA to initiate proceedings to withdraw approval of certain antibiotics used non-therapeutically in livestock. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to strike certain documents, adopted the Government's proposed schedule for complying with a previous order, and denied the Government's motion for a stay pending appeal. The judge found the FDA's decades-long delay in fulfilling its statutory duty to be unreasonable, justifying the imposition of a compliance timetable.

Antibiotic ResistanceAnimal Feed RegulationFDA EnforcementAdministrative Procedure ActFood, Drug, and Cosmetic ActMandamusJudicial ReviewStay Pending AppealSummary JudgmentPublic Health
References
41
Case No. 2015-08-0001
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2015

Ellis, John v. A AIR-One

Employee John D. Ellis filed a request for an Expedited Hearing after his employer, A Air-One Services, and its insurer, Auto Owners' Insurance, denied his workers' compensation claim based on an illegal drug usage defense. An initial urine drug test was positive for methamphetamines, but a subsequent hair sample test was negative. The Court found Mr. Ellis' testimony, denying drug use as the proximate cause of his September 19, 2014 back injury, to be credible. Due to conflicting drug test results and the absence of evidence supporting the defense, the Court ruled that the employer's illegal drug usage defense was not supported by the evidence.

illegal drug usage defenseproximate causeconflicting drug testsback injuryexpedited hearingTennessee Code AnnotatedWorkers' Compensation Claimsmedical benefitstemporary disability benefitsL2-L3 disc herniation
References
1
Case No. 2015-08-0001 / 78521-2014
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2015

Ellis, John v. A Air-One Service

This interlocutory appeal concerns an employee who suffered a back injury while working as an HVAC service technician. The employer denied the workers' compensation claim, citing a positive drug test and its status as a certified drug-free workplace. However, a subsequent drug test yielded a negative result. The trial court determined that the employer's defense of illegal drug use, as codified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-110(a)(3), was not supported by the evidence. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the record and affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the employee had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption that illegal drug use was the proximate cause of the injury with clear and convincing evidence. The case has been remanded for further necessary proceedings.

Workers' Compensation AppealsEmployee Injury ClaimEmployer Drug PolicyDrug Test ResultsIllegal Drug Use DefenseProximate Cause of InjuryRebuttal of PresumptionHerniated Disk SurgeryHVAC Service IndustryTennessee Workers' Comp Law
References
5
Case No. Docket No. 2018-06-2162, State File No. 69647-2018
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2020

Woodard, Denny v. Freeman Expositions, LLC

Mr. Woodard, a stagehand for Freeman Expositions, LLC, was injured when a top-heavy cart loaded with Masonite fell on his left ankle and right arm. Freeman denied the claim based on affirmative defenses of willful misconduct (violating a "push, don't pull" rule) and illegal drug use (positive drug test for oxycodone and marijuana). The Court found Mr. Woodard was likely to prevail, concluding that he did not violate the rule, the cart was dangerous, and there was insufficient evidence linking his drug use to the injury. The Court ordered Freeman to provide medical treatment and pay temporary total disability benefits for six weeks.

Willful MisconductIllegal Drug UseSafety Rule ViolationTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsAverage Weekly WageProximate CauseAffirmative DefensesStagehand InjuryCart Accident
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2002

People v. Fernandez

The defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree after a jury trial in Bionx County. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and concurrent sentences of six years and one year, respectively. The verdict was upheld against the weight of the evidence, as the jury properly rejected the defendant's justification defense, finding his use of force unjustified despite the complainant reaching for the knife first. The court noted that the defendant inflicted severe injuries while remaining uninjured and was still advancing with a knife on the unarmed, retreating complainant when police arrived. Additionally, the court properly redacted a reference to past drug use from the complainant's medical triage sheet due to a lack of proper foundation and irrelevance to treatment. The defendant's ability to cross-examine on the complainant's drug use at the time of the incident was not precluded.

Criminal LawAssault Second DegreeCriminal Possession of a WeaponJustification DefenseSelf-DefenseWeight of EvidenceCredibility DeterminationMedical Records RedactionHearsay RuleCross-Examination
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 1996

Isnardi v. Genovese Drug Stores, Inc.

Thomas Isnardi was injured on September 13, 1993, after falling from a scaffold while performing demolition work on premises owned by Genovese Drug Stores, Inc. He sued Genovese and the general contractor, Robbins & Cowan, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide adequate scaffolding. Robbins & Cowan, Inc. then filed a third-party action against Joe Demasco, Isnardi's employer. The Supreme Court granted Isnardi summary judgment on liability. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, denying the plaintiff's motion, as there was a factual dispute regarding whether Isnardi was a recalcitrant worker who refused to use a provided safe "pipe" scaffold, opting instead for an allegedly less stable "Baker" scaffold.

Personal InjuryScaffold FallDemolition WorkRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentLabor LawConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationAppellate Reversal
References
4
Case No. 04-CR-156
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Taveras

Defendant Humberto Pepin Taveras faces a homicide trial where the government seeks the death penalty for the killings of two associates during a drug trafficking dispute. Senior District Judge Jack B. Weinstein addresses the admissibility of a self-defense claim, emphasizing heightened protections for defendants in capital cases and allowing more leeway for evidence favoring the defendant. The defense intends to establish self-defense through witness statements suggesting the victims, José Rosario and Carlos Madrid, had threatened Pepin and his family. The prosecution disputes this, arguing Pepin deliberately sought out and murdered the victims, thereby precluding a self-defense claim as he initiated the confrontations. The court ultimately rules that Pepin will be permitted to argue self-defense, and related evidence will be allowed, with a self-defense instruction to the jury contingent on sufficient proof being presented.

Self-defenseCapital punishmentHomicide trialEvidentiary rulesDrug traffickingDeath penaltyJury instructionsCriminal lawDue processReasonable doubt
References
45
Case No. 2014-06-0052
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

Young, Sundance v. Pleasant View Home Repair

Sundance Young sustained a bimalleolar ankle fracture after falling from a roof while working for LeAnn Gay, d/b/a Pleasant View Home Repair. The employer denied the claim, asserting defenses of illegal drug use and willful failure to use a safety device. The Workers' Compensation Judge, Pamela G. Marshall, found that the employer failed to prove these affirmative defenses. Consequently, the court ordered the employer and its carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance, to cover all reasonable and necessary medical treatment with Dr. S. Matthew Rose. However, the claim for temporary disability benefits was denied due to insufficient expert evidence regarding the severity and duration of the disability at this time.

Ankle InjuryWorkplace SafetyDrug Intoxication DefenseMedical Treatment OrderTemporary Disability DenialWorkers' Compensation JudgeExpedited HearingAffirmative DefensesBurden of ProofCausal Connection
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peterson v. Barry, Bette & Led Duke, Inc.

The case involves a worker's fall through a roof, leading to a motion for summary judgment on liability by the plaintiff based on Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment on their 'recalcitrant worker' defense and for conditional indemnification against the third-party defendant, Wm. C. McCombs Company. The court addressed whether the facts supported the recalcitrant worker defense, which requires proof of a deliberate refusal to use available safety equipment. The court found a conspicuous lack of evidence for deliberate refusal, stating that unintentional failure or negligent omission would not support the defense against absolute liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court noted that workers were not expected to be tied on at all times and had to unhook for tasks. Therefore, the defendants failed to prove the crucial element of deliberate refusal, and their summary judgment motion on this defense was denied. The court granted partial summary judgment on liability for the plaintiff and granted defendants' motion for contractual indemnification from McCombs, determining McCombs was an agent by operation of law.

Labor Law § 240(1)Recalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityConstruction AccidentFall from HeightSafety EquipmentDeliberate RefusalNegligent OmissionContractual Indemnification
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2002

In re Roy R.

The Family Court found the respondent (mother) guilty of neglect due to her repeated attempts to allow the father, who had a history of drug abuse and domestic violence, to return to the family home. The respondent knew or should have known of the father's drug use within the home, leading to two of the three children witnessing drug use, having access to drugs, and on one occasion, ingesting them. The finding of neglect was supported by a preponderance of evidence, including the children's cross-corroborated statements to a social worker, the respondent's statements about the father's drug addiction, and the father's documented history of drug abuse. The orders of disposition, which released the children to the respondent’s custody under the supervision of the Administration for Children’s Services for 12 months, were unanimously affirmed.

NeglectDrug AbuseDomestic ViolenceChild WelfareFamily CourtParental NeglectChild CustodyEvidenceCorroborationAppellate Decision
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 5,436 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