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

Federal Express Corp. v. Dutschmann

Marcie Dutschmann, a former Federal Express employee, sued Federal Express for retaliatory discharge and breach of contract. A jury found that Federal Express terminated Dutschmann in retaliation for sexual harassment complaints and failed to exercise good faith in its Guaranteed Fair Treatment Procedure (GFTP) following her termination. Federal Express appealed the $89,000 judgment, raising five points related to sufficiency of evidence, contract formation from employee handbooks, breach of contract submission, good faith and fair dealing in employment, and attorney’s fees. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence for retaliatory discharge and that Federal Express's GFTP created a contractual duty of good faith, which it breached by manipulating the review process.

Retaliatory DischargeSexual HarassmentEmployment ContractEmployee HandbookGood Faith and Fair DealingPunitive DamagesAppellate ReviewJury VerdictDue ProcessGrievance Procedure
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sulewski v. Federal Express Corp.

A cargo plane crashed in Malaysia in 1989, resulting in the death of aircraft mechanic Leonard Sulewski. The plaintiff initiated a wrongful death action against Federal Express Corporation, successor to Flying Tiger Line, alleging liability under the Warsaw Convention and common law negligence. The central legal question revolved around whether Sulewski was traveling as a passenger or an on-duty employee at the time of the crash. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, presenting arguments regarding Sulewski's employment status and the applicability of the Convention. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact, concluding that Sulewski was an on-duty employee, not a passenger, and therefore the Warsaw Convention did not apply. The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Wrongful DeathWarsaw ConventionSummary JudgmentAirline LiabilityEmployee StatusPassenger StatusInternational TransportationAircraft MechanicScope of EmploymentFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
13
Case No. W2011-01807-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2012

Karim Skaan v. Federal Express Corporation

The case involves Karim Skaan's retaliatory discharge claim against Federal Express Corporation. Skaan injured his back twice and was terminated by FedEx pursuant to its medical leave policy, after exhausting his allowable medical leave. He subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging retaliatory discharge for his workers' compensation claim. FedEx sought summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred by a contractual six-month limitation period and that the termination was policy-based, not retaliatory. The trial court granted summary judgment on the merits of the retaliatory discharge claim but denied it based on the contractual limitation period. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of FedEx, holding that Skaan's lawsuit was time-barred by the six-month contractual limitation period in his employment agreement.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationEmployment LawContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployment AgreementMedical Leave PolicyTime-Barred ClaimUnconscionability
References
26
Case No. 2016-08-0701
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2017

Gueye, Kine v. Federal Express Corporation

The employee, Kine Gueye, appealed a denial of additional benefits for a work-related low back strain, which the employer, Federal Express Corporation, had initially stipulated as compensable. The Appeals Board previously affirmed the trial court's denial of medical care for various complaints the employee alleged were related to her fall. Following a subsequent trial, the court again denied further medical and disability benefits, concluding the employee failed to prove her ongoing complaints primarily arose from her employment, though it awarded future medical treatment for the stipulated back strain. The employee appealed this decision, arguing legal errors and presenting non-appellate issues. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that pro se litigants must adhere to procedural rules and appellate courts will not construct arguments on their behalf. The Board also cautioned trial courts regarding the blanket judicial notice of prior testimony and exhibits.

Workers' Compensation AppealLow Back StrainMedical Benefits DenialTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityCausation IssuePreexisting ConditionPro Se LitigantJudicial NoticeAppellate Review Standards
References
23
Case No. 2019-08-0846
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2021

Jackson, Rodnecia v. Federal Express Corporation

The employee, Rodnecia A. Jackson, appealed a trial court's decision to grant summary judgment to her employer, Federal Express Corporation, and dismiss her workers' compensation case. Jackson claimed a left eye injury from foreign material during employment. While the employer initiated benefits, Jackson's petition for additional benefits was filed over a year after the last voluntary payment. The employer argued the petition was untimely and her ongoing complaints were unrelated. The trial court sided with the employer. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that Jackson's arguments on appeal did not adequately challenge the timeliness issue.

Workers' Compensation AppealTimeliness of PetitionSummary JudgmentCorneal AbrasionEye InjuryDiscovery RuleStatute of LimitationsBenefit DenialAppellate ReviewPro Se Appellant
References
4
Case No. 2020-08-0214
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2022

Lee, Courtney v. Federal Express Corporation

The employee, Courtney Lee, reported neck and back injuries from handling a box during her employment at Federal Express Corporation. While the employer accepted the claim and provided initial medical treatment, the authorized physician ultimately released her at maximum medical improvement, stating no further treatment was necessary. However, the trial court found the injury compensable and ordered ongoing medical treatment with the treating physician. Following the employer's refusal to authorize additional treatment, the trial court granted the employee's motion, prompting the employer's appeal. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, emphasizing the prior judgment awarding future medical benefits and the employee's continued symptoms despite the physician's reliance on outdated diagnostic information.

Medical BenefitsFuture Medical TreatmentCompensable InjuryMaximum Medical ImprovementObjective FindingsTrial Court OrderAppeals Board DecisionPhysician's OpinionBurden of ProofDiagnostic Testing
References
5
Case No. W2005-01527-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2006

Steve Mairose v. Federal Express Corporation

This case, an appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County, addresses an alleged breach of an employment contract between Steve Mairose, et al., and Federal Express Corporation. The dispute arose after FedEx's acquisition of Tiger International, leading to an integrated master seniority list for pilots. The appellant pilots argued that their seniority rights, established in the Flight Crewmember Handbook (FCH), were vested and improperly altered by FedEx's bulletin process. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson affirmed the chancery court's decision, ruling that seniority rights are contractual and amendable, not vested, thus FedEx did not breach the FCH. The court also upheld the dismissal of eight plaintiffs who failed to perfect their previous appeal and affirmed the award of discretionary costs to FedEx.

Employment LawContract DisputeSeniority RightsCorporate MergerAppellate ReviewTennessee LawPilot EmploymentArbitrationWaiverCivil Procedure
References
22
Case No. 2025-80-0048
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2026

Meener, Musshur v. Federal Express Hub

The employee, Musshur Meener, appealed the denial of additional medical and temporary disability benefits by the trial court after suffering work-related neck and shoulder injuries in a fall at Federal Express Hub. Despite receiving initial medical treatment and being assigned work restrictions, the employee sought further benefits, arguing the employer could not accommodate his restrictions. The trial court found the employee failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing at trial, particularly lacking medical proof for the causal relation of his current symptoms and entitlement to disability benefits given the employer's offer of accommodation. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the employee did not meet his burden of establishing entitlement to the requested additional benefits. The case was subsequently remanded.

Workers' CompensationInterlocutory AppealMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityWork RestrictionsMaximum Medical ImprovementCausal RelationBurden of ProofExpedited HearingSlip and Fall
References
3
Case No. 2021-08-0611
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2023

Rucker, Jr., Willie v. Federal Express Corporation

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee, Willie Rucker, Jr., challenged the trial court's denial of medical and temporary disability benefits. Rucker alleged head, neck, and back injuries from a falling crate at work, and a subsequent stroke, which he claimed was causally related to the work incident. The employer, Federal Express Corporation, admitted the initial incident but denied permanent injury or causation of the stroke. The authorized physicians, Dr. Riley Jones and Dr. Alan Nadel, found no objective findings and released Rucker from care. The trial court determined Rucker was unlikely to prevail due to a lack of medical proof for the stroke's causal relation. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that no expert medical proof supported the employee's claim, and remanded the case.

Workers' CompensationInterlocutory AppealMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityCausationStrokeWork AccidentObjective Medical FindingsPermanent ImpairmentExpert Medical Proof
References
2
Case No. 2017-08-1354
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2018

Hancock, Jurine v. Federal Express Corporation, et al.

The employee, Jurine Hancock, appealed a trial court decision denying workers' compensation benefits for cardiac arrest and related injuries sustained on the job. Hancock alleged her condition resulted from working long hours for Federal Express Corporation. The trial court found insufficient proof of a causal link between her employment and injury, leading to a denial of requested temporary disability and medical benefits. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, deemed the appeal frivolous due to lack of a transcript or brief, and subsequently remanded the case without awarding attorney's fees or expenses to the employer.

Workers' CompensationCardiac ArrestCausationMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityExpedited HearingFrivolous AppealPro SeMedical DocumentationScope of Employment
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 3,514 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