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. 01-A-01-9707-CH-00354; 96-1250-I
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 1998

Edith Stromatt v. The Metropolitan Employee Benefit Board of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee

Edith Stromatt, a former employee of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville, sought an in-line-of-duty (IOD) disability pension, having already been granted a medical disability pension. She sued the Metropolitan Employee Benefit Board, claiming an erroneous denial of the IOD pension and a violation of her constitutional right to due process. The trial court upheld the Board's decision. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed, ruling that Stromatt did not have a vested property interest in the IOD pension before it was granted and that the Board's denial was supported by material evidence, noting her disability was not from a specific incident of stress as required for an IOD pension.

Disability PensionIn-Line-of-Duty PensionMedical DisabilityDue Process ViolationProperty InterestAdministrative ReviewWrit of CertiorariStress-Related DisabilityEmployment BenefitsMetropolitan Government
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Faust v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville

This appellate opinion addresses the eligibility of civilian police and fire department employees for enhanced retirement benefits from the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. The dispute originated from the Metropolitan Benefit Board's decision in 1995 to include civilian fire department employees in a specialized pension plan, leading civilian police employees and their association to sue for equal protection violations. The trial court initially found disparate treatment, but the Metropolitan Government later argued the Board's actions were ultra vires. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the Board's administrative interpretations were unauthorized and void ab initio, and that the doctrine of estoppel could not be applied against the municipal corporation in this context.

Retirement BenefitsPension PlansEqual ProtectionUltra ViresAdministrative LawStatutory ConstructionMunicipal CorporationsEstoppelCivilian EmployeesPolice Department
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Friedar v. Government of Israel

Samuel Friedar, a New York citizen, sued the Government of Israel and its branches for failing to compensate him for medical costs and expenses incurred after being injured while serving in the Israeli Army in 1948. Friedar alleged breach of contract, intentional withholding of information, negligent loss of files, and wrongful conversion of funds. The Government moved to dismiss, claiming sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1604 and that the action was barred by the Act of State doctrine. The Court found that the Government was entitled to sovereign immunity, rejecting Friedar's arguments for exceptions based on waiver or commercial activity. Furthermore, even if jurisdiction existed, the Court would dismiss the case under the Act of State doctrine, citing the impropriety of reviewing a foreign state's internal administrative activity, especially regarding military and veterans' benefits. The Government’s motion to dismiss was granted.

Sovereign ImmunityAct of State DoctrineMotion to DismissForeign Sovereign Immunities ActFSIAGovernmental ImmunityCommercial Activity ExceptionVeterans' BenefitsJurisdictionInternational Law
References
13
Case No. 2016-03-1198
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2017

Green, Hilda v. Campbell Co. Government

Hilda Green, an employee of Campbell Co. Government, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking medical and temporary disability benefits for a mental injury she alleged arose from harassment and a physical assault by a co-worker. The central legal issue was whether Ms. Green established that her mental injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. Ms. Green provided medical records and an affidavit but did not present expert medical proof of causation or an in-person testimony. The Workers' Compensation Judge denied her claim, finding she failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate she was likely to prevail on the merits, specifically regarding medical causation and a sudden or unusual stimulus contributing more than fifty percent to her condition. The court found her mental injury was not primarily caused by a compensable physical injury or an identifiable work-related event.

Mental InjuryExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsWorkplace HarassmentPhysical Assault AllegationMedical CausationCredibility DeterminationsExpert Medical ProofWorkers' Compensation Judge
References
5
Case No. C.A. No. 02A01-9701-CH-00024
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1997

Eileen Smith v. Shelby Co. Government

Eileen Smith, a social worker, sued Shelby County Government for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining a right wrist injury while assisting a patient. The Chancery Court of Shelby County found the injury compensable, awarding Smith 60% permanent vocational disability to her right arm. Shelby County Government appealed this decision, challenging both the finding of a work-related injury and the extent of the disability award. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Western Section at Jackson, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence, including reports from Dr. E. B. Wilkerson and lay testimony, supported the finding that the injury arose out of employment. The court also upheld the disability rating, considering Smith's job skills, education, and the impact of her injury on her employment, as well as Dr. Neil Aranov's testimony regarding a work-related psychological adjustment disorder.

Workers' CompensationVocational DisabilityPermanent DisabilityWrist InjurySocial WorkerOrthopedic SurgeryPsychological ConditionMedical ImprovementScope of EmploymentAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 1979

In re the General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Am-Lon Knit Goods Finishing Corp.

This proceeding involved an assignee for the benefit of creditors seeking judicial determination of priority among various creditor claims. The claims included those from the Federal Government, preferred wage claims, the New York State Tax Commission for income withholding taxes, the Industrial Commissioner for unemployment insurance contributions, the Director of Finance of the City of New York for various city taxes, and two insurance companies for workers' compensation insurance premiums. The court reconsidered an earlier decision and clarified that Labor Law § 574 is applicable and controlling in this context, establishing parity between New York State and City tax claims. Consequently, these tax claims were granted priority over the workers' compensation insurance premiums. The decision also distinguishes insolvency proceedings from decedent's estate cases, which are governed by SCPA 1811.

InsolvencyCreditor PriorityTax ClaimsUnemployment InsuranceWorkers' CompensationAssignee for Benefit of CreditorsState TaxesCity TaxesLabor LawSCPA
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LTV Steel Co. v. Connors (In Re Chateaugay Corp.)

This case is an appeal of two orders issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The first order granted partial summary judgment to the Mining Companies and LTV Steel Corporation, holding they were not legally obligated to pay retiree health benefits. The second order granted the United Mine Workers of America's cross-motion for summary judgment, determining that the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Benefit Plan and Trust was liable to pay these benefits. The Plan & Trust appealed both orders to the District Court, arguing violations of the Retiree Benefits Bankruptcy Protection Act, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denial of due process, and misinterpretation of its obligations under the Wage Agreement's 'no longer in business' clause. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's orders, finding the Act inapplicable, subject matter jurisdiction proper as a core proceeding, sufficient opportunity to litigate, and the Plan & Trust liable due to contractual interpretation and collateral estoppel from prior litigations.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 11 ReorganizationRetiree Health BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementUMWAEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionCore ProceedingCollateral Estoppel
References
13
Case No. MDL 381
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation

Defendants, manufacturers of Agent Orange, brought third-party actions against the United States government seeking indemnity and contribution for settlement payments made to veterans' wives and children. The government moved to dismiss these claims. The court reiterated that previous direct claims against the government by veterans, wives, and children were dismissed either by the Feres doctrine or for failure to prove a causal connection. The third-party plaintiffs and defendants concurred that Agent Orange causation could not be established with available evidence. Consequently, the court granted the government's motion, ruling that the Federal Tort Claims Act precludes recovery without government misfeasance, and dismissed all third-party claims against the government, along with any existing government claims against other parties.

Agent OrangeProduct LiabilityThird Party ActionIndemnityContributionFederal Tort Claims ActFeres DoctrineCausationMilitary VeteransClass Action Settlement
References
12
Case No. M2015-01488-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2016

The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County v. The Civil Service Commission of The Metropolitan Government of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee

An officer with the Davidson County Sheriff's Department, Jerry Clark, was terminated for dishonesty after filing reports alleging he was attacked during training, which an investigation found to be exaggerated. An administrative law judge initially ordered his reinstatement with a ten-day suspension, a decision adopted by the Civil Service Commission. However, the Metropolitan Government sought judicial review, and the chancery court reversed the Commission's decision, finding it unsupported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancery court's ruling, concluding that the ALJ's findings were not backed by material evidence and remanded the case to the Commission for a determination of appropriate disciplinary action.

Police MisconductTermination of EmploymentDishonestyAdministrative ReviewJudicial PrecedentCivil Service LawSubstantial Evidence RuleWorkers' Compensation ClaimsRetaliation AllegationsDue Process Rights
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

The Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation , Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton , The Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation , Joann H. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton Company

This New York Court of Appeals opinion addresses the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn regarding dangers arising from the use of its product in combination with a third-party product. The Court held that such a duty exists when the third-party product is necessary for the manufacturer's product to function as intended, whether due to design, mechanics, or economic necessity, and the danger is known and foreseeable. Applying this rule, the Court affirmed judgments against Crane Co. in two separate asbestos litigations, finding that Crane had a duty to warn users of its valves about asbestos exposure from third-party sealing components. The decision clarified the balance of risks and costs in products liability law.

Product LiabilityFailure to WarnAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaManufacturer DutyCombined Product UseForeseeability of HarmEconomic NecessityComponent Parts DoctrineStrict Liability
References
91
Showing 1-10 of 12,145 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