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

Shepherd v. Goodwill Industries of South Texas, Inc.

Plaintiff Sheree Shepherd, a Black and legally blind individual, sued Defendant Goodwill Industries of South Texas Inc. for alleged discrimination based on race and disability, and for retaliation. The claims stemmed from Goodwill's decision not to hire Shepherd for a Junior Editor position, following her prior EEOC charge against former supervisors at South Texas Lighthouse for the Blind (STLB). Goodwill argued legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not hiring her, including a slow skills assessment and potential security clearance issues at the military base where the job was located. The Court denied Goodwill's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Goodwill's reasons were a pretext for discrimination and whether a former supervisor, Ms. Johnson, influenced the hiring decision with retaliatory motives under the 'cat's paw' theory.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities ActADAEmployment LawSummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationHiring Discrimination
References
23
Case No. E2024-01171-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF TENNEVA AREA, INC. v. MICHAEL HUTTON

This case concerns an appeal from the Chancery Court for Sullivan County, where Goodwill Industries of Tenneva Area, Inc., and its CEO, Morris Baker (Appellees), obtained an injunction and temporary restraining order against former employee Michael Hutton (Appellant) under the Tennessee Violence in the Workplace Act (TVWA). The appellees alleged Hutton engaged in unlawful violence, specifically stalking, through persistent Facebook posts after his termination and a ban from Goodwill premises. The Trial Court granted the injunction, found Hutton in contempt for violating the temporary restraining order, and awarded attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court's judgment, finding that the majority of Hutton's Facebook posts could not reasonably be construed as 'at the workplace' as required by the TVWA. The Court concluded that only one instance of harassment occurred at the workplace, which was insufficient to establish the 'pattern of conduct' necessary for stalking under the statute. Consequently, the findings of contempt and the awards of attorney's fees were also reversed.

Workplace Violence ActInjunctionStalkingSocial Media HarassmentContempt of CourtAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationFirst AmendmentEmotional Distress
References
14
Case No. 2014-02-0022
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2015

Smithee, Shelia v. Goodwill Industries

Shelia Smithee, a 60-year-old employee, suffered a back injury while working for Goodwill Industries on August 25, 2014. She reported the injury, but encountered delays in receiving a physician panel and was subsequently terminated for an incomplete urine drug screen (UDS) at an authorized clinic on October 3, 2014. Despite her explanation for being unable to provide a sample, Goodwill denied medical care, asserting non-compliance. However, Ms. Smithee passed an independent UDS later that same day with negative results. The Court found her injury compensable and granted medical benefits, allowing her to select a treating physician from the original panel, thereby overturning Goodwill's denial of benefits.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsUrine Drug ScreenCompensabilityBack InjuryEmployer LiabilityPhysician PanelExpedited HearingEmployee TerminationTennessee Workers' Compensation Law
References
3
Case No. 2021-06-1132
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2022

Eddie, Uncle v. Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee

At an expedited hearing on April 19, 2022, Mr. Eddie sought further medical care and temporary disability benefits for an accepted back injury, including the appointment of Dr. Narendra Singh as his authorized treating physician. The Court denied his requests because he already has an authorized treating physician, Dr. Malcolm Steele, willing to treat him, and Goodwill was accommodating his restrictions when he quit. The Court found Dr. Singh's opinion ambiguous and not sufficiently different from the authorized physicians' opinions to warrant a change. Mr. Eddie's request for temporary disability benefits was also denied as no physician took him completely off work for his work injury and Goodwill was accommodating his restrictions.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical Care Request DeniedTemporary Disability Benefits DeniedAuthorized Treating PhysicianPreexisting ConditionLumbar InjuryBack PainAggravation of InjuryForklift Accident
References
3
Case No. 2015-01-0201
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2015

Amos, Karen v. Chattanooga Goodwill Industries, Inc.

Karen Amos, an employee, sought to change her authorized treating physician or obtain a second opinion, and claim temporary disability benefits, after sustaining a back injury at Chattanooga Goodwill Industries, Inc. She expressed dissatisfaction with Dr. Madigan's care, who released her without restrictions, but provided no countervailing medical evidence to support her request. Goodwill opposed her requests, arguing she selected a physician from a valid panel and disputing her entitlement to benefits. The Court denied both her requests, finding no statutory authority for changing physicians or obtaining a second opinion under the presented circumstances. Additionally, her claim for temporary total disability benefits was denied due to the absence of medical expert opinion establishing a causal link between her injury and her inability to work.

Workers' CompensationMedical Treatment DisputeTemporary Total DisabilityPhysician ChoiceSecond Medical OpinionExpedited HearingBack InjuryEmployee TerminationTennessee LawStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. M2012-02242-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2013

Tonya Andrews, As Admin. for the Estate of James Christopher Sprinkle & Jacob Colton Sprinkle a minor by next friend and Guardian Tonya Andrews v. Amy Sprinkle and Frank Wray

This appeal concerns the valuation of a decedent's plumbing business, Rooter Drain and Plumbing, at the time of his death. The decedent's mother, as administratrix of the estate, sued the decedent's wife and her brother for wrongfully converting business assets and goodwill. The trial court found the defendants liable and awarded $75,000 in damages, comprising $25,000 for tangible assets and $50,000 for goodwill. On appeal, the defendants challenged the valuation and argued that goodwill should not be considered a separate property interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the valuation was supported by evidence and that goodwill is a transferable property interest in this context.

Estate AdministrationBusiness ValuationConversion of AssetsGoodwill ValuationAppellate ReviewDamages AwardProperty RightsIntestate SuccessionCredibility AssessmentBench Trial
References
27
Case No. 04-08-00067-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2008

Auburn Investments, Inc. v. LYDA Swinerton Builders, Inc. and NSHE TX Gainsville, LLC

Auburn Investments, Inc. (Appellant) appealed the denial of a temporary injunction against Lyda Swinerton Builders, Inc. and NSHE TX Gainsville, LLC (Appellees). Auburn, owner of the Drury Inn and Suites, sought to halt construction of a Marriott Courtyard Hotel next door due to trespass, loss of business goodwill, and nuisance caused by dust, debris, and noise. While a Rule 11 agreement addressed some noise and debris issues, Auburn pursued the temporary injunction for remaining concerns regarding dust and debris, alleging loss of goodwill and risk of injury to guests and employees. The trial court denied the injunction, finding Auburn failed to provide objective evidence for loss of goodwill and that concerns about imminent injury were based on fear rather than proven harm. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding there was no abuse of discretion.

Temporary InjunctionConstruction DisputeNuisanceTrespassBusiness GoodwillAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionReal Estate LitigationHotel IndustryProperty Damage
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rios v. Goodwill Industries

On December 24, 2002, claimant was allegedly injured after a physical altercation with a coworker, leading to a workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claim, finding no accidental injury arising from employment and no credible medical evidence supporting compensable injuries. The Board rejected the claimant's account of a severe assault, crediting a witness who described a minor incident. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings regarding the incident's exaggeration and the lack of reliable medical proof for the alleged injuries.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryEmployment NexusCredibilityMedical EvidenceBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewCoworker IncidentExaggerationClaim Denial
References
1
Case No. ADJ9869692, ADJ9869400
Regular
Jun 30, 2016

ELISHA MAYE vs. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to correct a clerical error. The Board rescinded the original Findings and Award and substituted a new one, removing Finding of Fact No. 8. All other aspects of the original decision, including the applicant's industrial injuries and entitlement to temporary disability and further medical treatment, remain unchanged.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary DisabilityIndustrial InjuryRight FootLeft KneeRight KneeRight ShoulderPermissibly Self-Insured
References
1
Case No. ADJ7491926 ADJ7174640
Regular
Apr 22, 2011

JACQUELIN ESCALANTE vs. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, PMA GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) that settled applicant's back injury claim for $5,150.00. The Board found the applicant's petition for reconsideration was timely because service of the OACR was defective due to an incorrect address. Consequently, the OACR was rescinded, and the case is returned to the trial level to determine if the compromise should be reinstated, requiring the applicant to show grounds like fraud or mistake.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseIndustrial InjuryDefective ServiceTimelinessRescindedTrial LevelEquitableFraud
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 27 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