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. Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 Consolidated
Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.

This case involves appeals concerning the consolidation and venue of two actions arising from a fatal car accident in Broome County. Plaintiff Paul Schiffman, executor of the deceased Helds' estates, and plaintiff Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), the Helds' insurer, initiated separate actions against defendant Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company in Monroe County. Uniroyal moved to consolidate the actions and change venue to Broome County, citing witness inconvenience. The Supreme Court denied Uniroyal's motion regarding venue. The appellate court found special circumstances warranted deviation from the general venue rules, reversing the lower court's decision and setting venue for the consolidated actions in Broome County. An appeal from a motion for reconsideration was dismissed.

Venue ChangeConsolidationProducts LiabilityNegligenceWrongful DeathFatal AccidentWitness InconvenienceAppellate ReviewDiscretionary AbuseBroome County Venue
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harper v. Government Employees Insurance

This is a collective action where Plaintiff Candace Harper seeks overtime compensation from her former employer, GEICO, under the FLSA and New York State law, claiming she and other Telephone Claims Representatives (TCRs) were improperly denied overtime. GEICO argued TCRs were exempt administrative employees and moved for summary judgment, while Harper sought partial summary judgment against GEICO's exemption claim. The court denied Harper's motion for partial summary judgment and granted GEICO's motion for summary judgment, finding that TCRs perform administrative duties directly related to GEICO's business operations and exercise sufficient discretion and independent judgment to qualify for the administrative exemption. Consequently, the court did not address GEICO's motion to decertify the collective action.

FLSAOvertime CompensationAdministrative ExemptionSummary JudgmentCollective ActionInsurance IndustryClaims AdjustersDiscretion and Independent JudgmentWage and HourTelephone Claims Representatives
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weissman v. Government Employees Insurance

This case concerns an appeal by plaintiffs from the denial of their motion for summary judgment and a motion to renew and reargue in a declaratory judgment action. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that a Workers' Compensation claim filed by their employee, Carrie Johnson, against them was covered under their homeowner's insurance policy issued by GEICO. Carrie Johnson sustained personal injuries at the plaintiffs' premises. While GEICO provided defense for the personal injury action, it refused to defend the Workers' Compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial, citing unresolved factual questions concerning Johnson's employment status that are best left to the Workers' Compensation Board. The court also noted that GEICO's tardy disclaimer would not create coverage and the plaintiffs' estoppel claims against GEICO were without merit.

Homeowner's Insurance PolicyWorkers' Compensation CoverageDeclaratory Judgment ActionSummary Judgment AppealInsurance DisputeEmployment StatusAppellate DivisionQueens County Supreme CourtInsurance DisclaimerEstoppel Claim
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2016

Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v. Sherlock

Peter Sherlock died in a car collision with an underinsured driver. His widow, Maria E. Tramontozzi Sherlock, sought supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) benefits from Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO). GEICO denied the claim, asserting that the SUM coverage was fully offset by prior settlements received from the tortfeasor's insurer and the Old Brookville defendants' insurer, relying on conditions 6 and 11(e) of the SUM endorsement. GEICO then commenced a proceeding to permanently stay arbitration, and the Supreme Court granted GEICO's petition. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, denying GEICO's petition and dismissing the proceeding. The court clarified that the non-duplication clause in SUM coverage is intended to prevent double recoveries for the same injuries, not to prevent an insured from obtaining full compensation, and that the amount of SUM coverage should not be reduced without regard to the actual amount of bodily injury damages suffered. Consequently, Tramontozzi Sherlock is entitled to proceed to arbitration.

SUM coverageunderinsured motoristuninsured motoristarbitrationinsurance policybodily injury damagesnon-duplication clauseAppellate DivisionCPLR article 75Insurance Law 60-2.3
References
2
Case No. M2019-00413-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2020

The Electric Employees' Civil Service and Pension Board of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee v. Brian Mansell

This appeal concerns the termination of Brian Mansell, an NES cable splicer/working foreman, by the Electric Employees’ Civil Service and Pension Board for allegedly approving fraudulent timesheets. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found insufficient evidence of knowing misconduct and recommended Mansell's reinstatement without back pay, citing a lack of training, absence of responsibility to verify timesheets, and common practice of rounding hours. The Board rejected the ALJ's recommendation and upheld the termination without issuing its own factual findings. The trial court reversed the Board's decision, adopting the ALJ's report and ordering Mansell's reinstatement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious due to its failure to make specific findings of fact and its disregard for the ALJ's well-supported findings.

Employment TerminationFraudulent TimesheetsAdministrative Law JudgeJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationBoard DecisionEmployee ReinstatementArbitrary and CapriciousMetro Charter
References
19
Case No. 03-03-00199-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2004

Valentine Cantu, Maria Padilla, Carolyn Chatham, Suzanne Hoog-Watson and George Denton v. Texas Workforce Commission and Employees Retirement System of Texas

This case, heard by the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, involves an appeal from a summary judgment in a suit alleging age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. Appellants, former employees of the Texas Workforce Commission, claimed they were terminated due to age and that the Employees Retirement System of Texas misinterpreted a government code section regarding early retirement benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's summary judgment, concluding that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination and that the Retirement System's interpretation of former government code section 814.1041(b) was correct. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying attorney's fees or excluding evidence.

Age discriminationSummary judgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActRetirement benefitsGovernment code interpretationStatutory constructionLegislative intentDisparate impactPretext methodPrima facie case
References
28
Case No. M2004-01910-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2005

Rickey W. Pendleton v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County

Rickey W. Pendleton sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County for injuries sustained during his arrest by metropolitan police officers, alleging assault and battery and vicarious liability through respondeat superior. The trial court granted summary judgment for the government, ruling that a standalone respondeat superior claim was insufficient under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) for intentional torts, requiring a separate negligence claim against the governmental entity. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that the GTLA mandates a direct showing of negligence by the governmental entity for intentional torts committed by its employees, and Pendleton failed to assert such a claim against the Metropolitan Government.

Governmental Tort Liability ActRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentIntentional TortsNegligenceAssault and BatteryPolice MisconductGovernmental ImmunityTennessee LawMunicipal Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Federation of Government Employees Local 1 v. Stone

Plaintiff Justin McCrary, a federal employee at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1 (AFGE Local 1) sued the United States for alleged non-payment of his promised salary, citing violations of Fifth Amendment and contract rights under the Little Tucker Act. The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss based on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Court first dismissed AFGE Local 1 as a party due to lack of representational standing. Subsequently, the Court addressed McCrary's claims, finding his constitutional claim for back pay preempted by the Civil Service Reform Act and unexhausted administratively, thus lacking subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court determined McCrary had no protected property interest in a specific salary due to his conditional appointment and probationary status, and no actionable breach of contract claim as federal employees derive benefits from appointment, not contract. Consequently, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was granted, and the Plaintiffs' Complaint was dismissed with prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

Motion to DismissFederal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)Rule 12(b)(6)Fifth AmendmentDue ProcessLittle Tucker ActCivil Service Reform ActBreach of Contract
References
82
Showing 1-10 of 9,038 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