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. 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. 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. 13-17-00641-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2018

American Bank, N.A. as Trustee of the Lisa Marie Buckley Trust and Co-Trustee of the John Buckley Jr. Trust and Kelly Rose Kinard Trust, John Buckley Jr. Trust, Lisa Marie Buckley Trust, Kelly Rose Kinard Trust, Together With John Buckley Jr., Lisa Marie Buckley, and Kelly Kinard, as Trustee, Co-Trustee and/or Trust Beneficiaries of the John Buckley Jr. Trust, Lisa Marie Buckley Trust and Kelly Rose Kinard Trust, and/or Shareholders v. Moorehead Oil & Gas, Inc., Moorehead Acquisition, LLC, and Moorehead Oil & Gas, LLC

This is an appeal regarding a summary judgment in a proceeding to determine the fair value of ownership interests in corporate stock under the Texas Business Organizations Code. Appellants, consisting of American Bank, N.A. as trustee, and the Buckley family members (John J. Buckley Jr., Lisa Marie Buckley, and Kelly Rose Kinard) as co-trustees and/or beneficiaries of their trusts, challenged the denial of their petition for stock valuation against Moorehead Oil & Gas entities. The key arguments on appeal were whether the Bank was the sole entity capable of requesting a valuation and if the limitations period was tolled due to the misnomer doctrine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Lisa Marie Buckley's claim as a beneficiary due to lack of standing, but reversed the remainder of the judgment, ruling that the first amended petition related back to the timely-filed original petition for limitations purposes and that American Bank, John J. Buckley Jr., and Kelly Rose Kinard had standing as trustees or co-trustees. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentCorporate Stock ValuationDissenting Shareholder RightsTexas Business Organizations CodeTrusts and TrusteesBeneficiary StandingLimitations PeriodMisnomer DoctrineAppellate ProcedureFair Value Appraisal
References
24
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rathmell v. Morrison

John A. Rathmell appealed a $3,000,000 judgment rendered against him in a bill of review proceeding initiated by his former wife, Mary Ann Rathmell Morrison, concerning their 1975 divorce decree and property settlement. Morrison alleged that Rathmell misrepresented the value of their community-owned insurance companies, concealed pre-divorce sale negotiations, and coerced her into signing the settlement agreement. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, finding that a single disjunctive jury issue regarding fraud, coercion, or failure to disclose material facts was improperly submitted and too broad. While upholding the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction and the sufficiency of Morrison's pleadings, the court ruled that the value attributed to personal goodwill and future efforts should be excluded from the companies' valuation. The court also held that evidence of subsequent sale price was admissible but found no evidence of wrongful concealment regarding pre-divorce sale negotiations.

DivorceProperty SettlementBill of ReviewExtrinsic FraudCommunity PropertyBusiness ValuationProfessional GoodwillJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewMarital Assets
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 1995

Morales v. Morales

In a divorce action, the husband appealed portions of a judgment concerning child support, private parochial school tuition, division of a savings/security plan, pension plan, and the valuation of the wife’s practical nurse license. The appellate court modified the judgment regarding the private school tuition, directing the husband to pay 68% instead of the full amount. Crucially, the court also modified the valuation of the wife’s nursing license, rejecting the wife's expert's flawed methodology and adopting the husband's expert's valuation of $98,000 in enhanced earning capacity, crediting the husband with a $9,800 share. The court found the wife's expert's valuation speculative and not founded in economic reality. The judgment, as modified, was affirmed.

Equitable DistributionMarital PropertyEnhanced Earning CapacityProfessional License ValuationChild SupportPrivate School TuitionAppellate ReviewExpert TestimonyValuation MethodologyDivorce Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Katz v. Feinberg

This case involves a dispute between former business partners, Norman Katz (petitioner) and Herbert Feinberg (respondent), arising from the sale of Katz's interest in their company, I. Appel Corporation, to Feinberg. An arbitration panel initially denied most claims but found that the purchase price valuation was improperly calculated. Katz petitioned the District Court to confirm the arbitration award in its entirety, while Feinberg cross-moved to partially vacate and modify the award, arguing the arbitrators exceeded their authority by re-fashioning the valuation determined by independent accountants (Mahoney, Cohen). The Court granted Feinberg's motion, vacating the portion of the award that adjusted the purchase price valuation, concluding that the original agreement made the accountants' determination final and immune from arbitral review. The remaining aspects of the arbitration award, including the direction for interest payments on the adjusted principal, were confirmed.

Arbitration AwardVacatur of AwardContract InterpretationPurchase AgreementBusiness Partnership DisputeAccountant ValuationFinality ClauseArbitrabilityFederal Arbitration ActNew York Law
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 102 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