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
Nov 02, 1994

Kern v. Frye Copysystems, Inc.

The case concerns William and Dorothy Kern's personal injury claims against Frye Copysystems, Inc. and Wheelabrator-Frye Co., stemming from an accident involving a rotary coating machine. The Kerns alleged negligence, breach of warranty, and strict products liability due to a defective design. The defendants sought summary judgment, arguing immunity under Worker's Compensation Law, that the warranty claim was time-barred, and that strict liability was inapplicable. The court granted summary judgment on the breach of warranty and strict products liability claims, but denied it for the negligence claim against Copysystems, citing unresolved factual disputes regarding machine modifications and successor liability under the "Billy" exception to Worker's Compensation exclusivity.

Personal InjuryProducts LiabilityNegligenceBreach of WarrantySummary JudgmentSuccessor LiabilityWorker's Compensation LawDefective DesignMachine AccidentStatute of Limitations
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Frye

This workman's compensation case involved an appeal by an insurance carrier (appellant) seeking to overturn an Industrial Accident Board award for Mrs. Frye and her minor daughter, following the death of N. G. Frye. Frye, an employee, died from gas asphyxiation after entering a tank to rescue an employee of another company during an emergency, a situation endorsed by his foreman. The insurance carrier contended that Frye's actions fell outside the course of his employment. However, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's lump-sum judgment, determining that Frye's injury, sustained in an emergency under his foreman's direction, was incidental to and arose from his employment under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Workman's CompensationScope of EmploymentEmergency DoctrineRescue AttemptAsphyxiation FatalityIndustrial AccidentLump Sum AwardAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Appeals
References
19
Case No. 2016-06-0327
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2016

Frye, Annette v. Vincent Printing Co.

Annette Frye, an employee of Vincent Printing Co., sought medical and temporary partial disability benefits after sustaining an injury at work. She experienced dizziness and fell while wiping machines with denatured alcohol, resulting in injuries to her right arm and side. The employer and its carrier denied the claim, asserting an idiopathic fall. However, the court found her injury arose from employment, granting medical benefits and temporary partial disability benefits from January 15, 2016, to February 22, 2016. Further temporary partial disability benefits were denied after February 22, 2016, because Ms. Frye failed to attempt available light-duty work.

Expedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Partial DisabilityIdiopathic Injury DefenseWork Injury FallDenatured Alcohol ExposureOccupational Health ServicesReturn to Work RestrictionsCausation AnalysisEmployer's Duty to Accommodate
References
5
Case No. ADJ1941485 (VNO 0263845) ADJ4137418 (VNO 0270976) ADJ1018222 (MON 0140131)
Regular
Dec 15, 2008

GERTRUDE CHISM vs. K-MART/SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, Permissibly Self-Insured Administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition to remove WCJ Zarett as moot due to his retirement, and denied the request for a commissioner's hearing on sanctions as premature. The Board remanded the case to the trial level for a full evidentiary hearing on the defendant's allegations regarding the applicant's attorneys, as these factual issues are best addressed by a new Workers' Compensation Judge. The defendant's numerous petitions for removal, vacating hearings, and stays were largely dismissed or denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGertrude ChismK-Mart/Sears Holding CorporationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for Commissioner's HearingRemoval of Judge ZarettVacate HearingStay ProceedingsImposition of SanctionsGuardian Ad Litem
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hearring v. Sliwowski

Melissa Hearring, as next friend of a minor, B.H., filed a § 1983 action against school nurse Karen Sliwowski and the Metropolitan Government of Nashville Davidson County, Tennessee, alleging a Fourth Amendment violation for an intrusive visual search of B.H.'s labia without consent or emergency. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment for defendants, citing qualified immunity for Sliwowski and insufficient evidence against Metro. However, the District Judge set aside this recommendation, concluding that B.H.'s Fourth Amendment right was clearly established at the time of the search. The Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that Metro could be liable for deliberate indifference to the need for clear policies regarding student searches.

Fourth AmendmentQualified ImmunitySchool SearchStrip SearchMinor's RightsDeliberate IndifferenceMunicipal LiabilitySchool Nurse ConductParental ConsentMedical Examination
References
79
Case No. 2015-02-0155, 2015-02-0156, 40357-2015, 31700-2015
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2018

Muse, Estel Blackie v. Campbell County

Estel "Blackie" Muse, an employee of Campbell County, filed claims for multiple injuries, including his back, hearing loss, right shoulder, bilateral upper extremities, and occupational lung disease. The employer accepted the back and hearing-loss claims but denied the others. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims at Knoxville, presided by Judge Lisa A. Lowe, denied Mr. Muse's claims for his right shoulder, bilateral upper extremity, and occupational lung disease, finding he failed to establish compensability. However, the court granted permanent partial disability benefits for his back and hearing loss based on accepted medical opinions, incorporating increased benefits and applying a social security offset. The total award for permanent partial disability benefits was $79,073.37, and future medical benefits for his back and hearing loss were also awarded.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityBack InjuryHearing LossOccupational Lung DiseaseRight Shoulder InjuryBilateral Upper Extremities InjuryMedical CausationPreponderance of EvidenceIndependent Medical Evaluation (IME)
References
5
Case No. 2016-03-0523
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2016

Hanneken, Kevin v. Consolidated Nuclear Services, LLC

Mr. Kevin Hanneken, a 61-year-old machinist, sought workers' compensation for binaural hearing loss, claiming his employer, Consolidated Nuclear Services, LLC (CNS), was liable for an aggregate 14% permanent medical impairment, which included a pre-existing 5% impairment. The central legal issue was CNS's liability for this pre-existing condition, given that Mr. Hanneken had an ascertainable rating at the start of his employment. The court ruled that the 'last injurious injury' rule does not apply under the Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 2013 when a pre-existing impairment is readily ascertainable. Consequently, the court found CNS not liable for Mr. Hanneken's pre-existing 5% hearing loss. Mr. Hanneken was awarded nine percent permanent partial disability for the increase in hearing loss during his employment with CNS, amounting to $34,749.00 in benefits, along with medical treatment for his bilateral hearing loss.

Hearing LossOccupational Noise ExposurePre-existing ConditionLast Injurious Injury RuleTennessee Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 2013Permanent Partial DisabilityMedical ImpairmentCausationEmployer LiabilityMachinist
References
5
Case No. 2017-05-0721
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2018

Robertson, Beverly vs. Edwards Oil Of Lawrenceburg

Beverly Robertson filed a claim against Edwards Oil of Lawrenceburg and Accident Fund Gen. Ins. Co. An Expedited Hearing was held on March 20, 2018. During the hearing, Ms. Robertson's counsel acknowledged that no medical or temporary disability benefits were in dispute; instead, the employee sought a determination of her correct average weekly wage. The Court, citing Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(d)(1), found it could only conduct expedited hearings regarding temporary disability or medical benefits, which were not in dispute. Therefore, the Court denied Ms. Robertson's claim at this time and ordered her to file a Request for Scheduling Hearing or a valid Request for Expedited Hearing within thirty days.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingAverage Weekly WageClaim DenialProcedural RulingTennessee LawDisability BenefitsMedical BenefitsJurisdiction
References
1
Case No. 2014-08-0058
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2015

Marzette, Shelton v. Pat Salmon & Sons, Inc.

Shelton Marzette, a truck driver for Pat Salmon and Sons, Inc., filed for an expedited hearing after sustaining a hearing injury on July 31, 2014, while working in Denver, Colorado. He experienced a 'pop' in his ears, causing hearing loss and vertigo. His claim for medical and temporary disability benefits was denied by his employer based on Dr. Rucker's opinion that the injury was not work-related. The Court found the employer's provided panel of physicians defective because it lacked specialists for hearing injuries, thus invalidating Dr. Rucker's presumptive correctness. Consequently, the Court ordered Pat Salmon and Sons, Inc. to provide Mr. Marzette with a new panel of physicians specializing in hearing injuries to determine causation and period of disability.

Workers' CompensationHearing LossVertigoTruck DriverExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsCausationDefective Physician PanelAltitudeBarometric Pressure
References
1
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05688
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2025

Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v. New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings

Sahara Construction Corp. challenged a determination by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) that upheld civil penalties and a restitution order for violations related to a home improvement project. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed OATH's determination, finding that the imposed civil penalties of $5,000 and restitution of $230,266.63 were not disproportionate and fell within statutory guidelines. The Court also affirmed the denial of the petitioner's motions to dismiss and compel discovery, concluding they were not arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Home Improvement ContractorsCivil PenaltiesRestitution AwardAdministrative Code ViolationsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionSense of FairnessAdministrative Summons
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 4,173 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