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. 2015-08-0292
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2015

Sirkin, Shawn v. Trans Carriers, Inc.

Shawn Sirkin, a 55-year-old resident of Toledo, Ohio, allegedly sustained a shoulder injury while working as a truck driver for Trans-Carriers, Inc., which subsequently denied her claim. Ms. Sirkin filed a Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD) and later a Request for Expedited Hearing (REH) seeking temporary disability and medical benefits. The Court's primary focus was to determine if Ms. Sirkin complied with procedural requirements, specifically the filing of a sufficient supporting affidavit with her REH. The Court found that her submitted 'affidavit' was unsigned and unsworn, thus failing to meet the legal requirements outlined in the Court's rules and Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 72. Consequently, the Court denied Ms. Sirkin's Request for Expedited Hearing on procedural grounds.

Expedited HearingAffidavit RequirementsProcedural ComplianceTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsShoulder InjuryTruck DriverWorkers' Compensation LawBurden of ProofStatutory Construction
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bryce v. Shipyard

A claimant for the employer suffered occupational binaural hearing loss over 48 years of employment, initially estimated at 40%. A federal claim under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act was rejected on procedural grounds in 1950. After retirement in 1958, a state claim was filed, leading to a Workmen’s Compensation Board finding of 47% hearing loss. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing prior disability and federal pre-emption. The Appellate Division affirmed the board's decision, applying the "twilight zone" rule and stating that the prior federal claim's procedural rejection did not preclude state jurisdiction.

Occupational Hearing LossWorkers' CompensationLongshoremen's ActJurisdictionTwilight Zone RuleFederal PreemptionSchedule AwardTimelinessNotice RequirementsAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 2016-01-0139
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2016

Brown, Bonnie v. Whole Foods Markets, Inc.

Employee Bonnie Brown filed a Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD) alleging a compensable spinal injury sustained on July 22, 2015, in the course and scope of her employment as a food preparer for Whole Foods Markets, Inc. The disputed issues included the employer's failure to provide a proper panel of back specialists/neurosurgeons and to provide requested discovery documents. Ms. Brown subsequently filed a Request for Expedited Hearing, seeking to resolve these discovery issues based on a review of the file without an evidentiary hearing. However, the Workers' Compensation Judge, Thomas Wyatt, denied the expedited hearing request. The Court determined that Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law, specifically Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239, does not permit discovery disputes to be addressed through an expedited hearing. Instead, discovery disputes must be adjudicated upon the review of written motions and affidavits, and Ms. Brown was advised to utilize standard discovery procedures and potentially file a motion to compel if necessary. A Status Conference was set for June 7, 2016.

Expedited Hearing RequestDiscovery DisputesWorkers' Compensation LawSpinal InjuryPetition for Benefit DeterminationDenial of RequestProcedural RulesStatus ConferenceAppeals BoardTennessee Law
References
2
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. 2023-07-7479
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2025

HEADLEY, HARRY V. ROADSTAR, LLC

This case concerns Harry Headley's claim for workers' compensation benefits following an alleged work injury on June 29, 2023. A compensation hearing was scheduled for November 13, 2025, but Mr. Headley failed to appear and did not submit any required exhibits or witness lists by the deadline. The Court denied his late motion for continuance and proceeded with the scheduled hearing. Due to Mr. Headley's failure to prosecute his claim, including his non-appearance, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice under Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41.02. Consequently, his claim for workers' compensation benefits was denied, and Roadstar was ordered to pay court costs.

Failure to ProsecuteDismissal with PrejudiceCompensation HearingWorkers' Compensation BenefitsClaim DenialProcedural DismissalRule 41.02Employee Non-AppearanceCourt CostsFinal Adjudication
References
1
Case No. 2022-06-1720
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2023

Garlock, Autumn v. O’Reilly Wooten 2000, LLC, d/b/a O’Reilly Auto Parts,

Autumn Garlock sustained a back injury while lifting an object at O’Reilly Auto Parts. The employer denied the claim, asserting a willful misconduct defense due to alleged improper lifting procedures. The Court conducted an expedited hearing and determined that the employer failed to present sufficient evidence for its defense, concluding that Ms. Garlock is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. Consequently, the Court ordered O’Reilly to authorize medical treatment with Dr. Ryan Snowden for Ms. Garlock’s back injury. However, requests for past medical bills and temporary disability benefits were denied at this time. The case was also referred to the Compliance Program for investigation into potential statute and rule violations by O’Reilly.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsWillful Misconduct DefenseLifting InjuryBack PainEmployer LiabilityCausationMedical Treatment AuthorizationPenalty Referral
References
10
Case No. 2018-02-0051
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2018

Hoss, Timothy v. ASR Metals

Timothy Hoss, an employee, filed an expedited hearing request seeking medical benefits for a back injury sustained on October 29, 2014, while working for ASR Metals. The central issues were the causal relationship between his need for treatment and the injury, and the medical necessity of proposed spinal surgery and facet injections. After an initial denial of decompression surgery recommended by Dr. Morgan Lorio, Mr. Hoss was evaluated by neurosurgeon Dr. Jim Brasfield. Dr. Brasfield recommended an L2-L3 MIS decompressive hemilaminectomy and L5-S1 percutaneous facet injections, citing stenosis and radiculopathy. ASR Metals' utilization review physician, Dr. Kimberly Terry, denied these procedures, attributing findings to pre-existing degenerative disc disease. The Court, however, found that ASR Metals failed to overcome the presumption of correctness of the authorized panel physician, Dr. Brasfield, regarding both causation and medical necessity. Consequently, the Court granted Mr. Hoss's requested relief, ordering ASR Metals to schedule the recommended surgical procedures.

Workers' CompensationBack InjurySpinal SurgeryFacet InjectionsMedical NecessityCausationUtilization ReviewPresumption of CorrectnessExpedited HearingMedical Benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Council of City v. Department of Homeless Services

The New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS) implemented a new Eligibility Procedure for Temporary Housing Assistance (THA) applicants. The Council of the City of New York (City Council) filed a declaratory judgment action, asserting DHS failed to comply with the notice and hearing requirements of the New York City Administrative Procedure Act (CAPA). The court affirmed lower court rulings, determining that DHS's procedure constitutes a 'rule' under CAPA, requiring public notice and hearings. The court rejected DHS's arguments that the procedure involved sufficient discretion or fell under an exemption, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the procedure and its substantial impact on eligibility determinations. Consequently, the Eligibility Procedure is unenforceable until DHS adheres to CAPA's procedural mandates.

Administrative LawRulemakingDeclaratory JudgmentHomeless ServicesTemporary Housing AssistanceNew York City CharterCAPASAPAAgency DiscretionProcedural Requirements
References
14
Case No. 2024-60-7231
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2025

Farmer, Joseph v. Five Star Building Group, LLC

In this appeal, the employer contested the trial court's refusal to hear its dispositive motion before an expedited hearing, arguing it constituted an abuse of discretion and a violation of procedural due process. The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, citing the broad discretion trial courts have in managing their dockets. The Board found no rule mandating an immediate hearing on dispositive motions and concluded that the employer was not prohibited from filing the motion, only that its hearing would be deferred. Furthermore, the Board rejected the procedural due process claim, stating the employer failed to demonstrate an actual deprivation of rights, presenting only theoretical future harm. Consequently, the Board affirmed the lower court's decision and remanded the case.

Procedural Due ProcessExpedited HearingDispositive MotionSummary JudgmentAbuse of DiscretionDocket ManagementWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewConstitutional LawEmployer Rights
References
21
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
Showing 1-10 of 7,227 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