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
Sep 03, 1982

Cerrato v. Thurcon Construction Corp.

This case concerns a construction worker (plaintiff) who sustained serious injuries and sued 211 Thompson Corp. (owner) and Thurcon Construction Corp. (general contractor). Defendant 211 Thompson Corp. raised an affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service of process. After the Statute of Limitations had expired, plaintiff moved to strike this defense, while 211 cross-moved to dismiss the action as time-barred. Special Term referred the issue of service validity to a referee, but the plaintiff argued for a jury trial on this factual issue. The Appellate Division, Supreme Court, New York County, modified Special Term's order, directing a jury trial on the validity of the service, while otherwise affirming the original determination. The dissenting opinion argued that the right to a jury trial should not be conditioned on the stage of proceedings or the impact of dismissal on the Statute of Limitations, and furthermore, considered the question of authority to accept service as one of law, not fact.

Jury TrialService of ProcessPersonal JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsAffirmative DefenseAppellate ReviewCPLRProcedural LawConstruction AccidentsNew York Courts
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cortrim Manufacturing Co. v. Smith

The plaintiff sought death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for her husband’s death, alleging a causal connection between his employment activities and his fatal heart attack. The defendant appealed the trial court's decision, challenging the admissibility of a hypothetical question posed to a heart specialist and the finding of a causal link. The court affirmed the Chancellor's decree, ruling that the trial court did not err in overruling the objection to the hypothetical question. Furthermore, it concluded that sufficient evidence supported the finding that the decedent's physical activity and exertion at work precipitated his fatal heart attack, even with a pre-existing heart condition.

Workers' CompensationHeart AttackCausationMedical TestimonyHypothetical QuestionExertionEmployment Death BenefitsArteriosclerotic Heart DiseaseAcute Myocardial InfarctionTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Banks v. St. Francis Hospital

The plaintiff, a central dispatch technician at St. Francis Hospital, suffered a severe chest pain on January 23, 1982, while lifting a heavy box, which aggravated a pre-existing 95% coronary artery stenosis. She underwent bypass surgery and was later deemed permanently and totally disabled. The trial court awarded benefits, which the employer appealed, arguing the action was time-barred and the award lacked evidence. The employer also objected to the trial judge's failure to rule on hypothetical questions. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the action was filed within the statute of limitations, the disability was supported by evidence, and the trial judge's handling of hypothetical questions did not constitute reversible error.

Worker's CompensationPermanent Total DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityMedical ExpensesStatute of LimitationsPre-existing ConditionHeart DiseaseAggravation of InjuryBypass SurgeryHypothetical Questions
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stafford v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Danny L. Stafford sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration's decision denying his application for a closed period of disability insurance benefits, marking his second federal court appearance for this claim. The court previously remanded the case for reconsideration of new evidence. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Harry L. Williams, Jr., reconsidered and again denied the application. Plaintiff alleged legal errors by the Commissioner in evaluating medical opinions and substantial evidence errors in credibility determinations and the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert. The court, led by District Judge Heartfield, adopted the Magistrate Judge's report, finding no legal error in the ALJ's evaluation of the treating physician's opinion and concluding any other errors were harmless. The court also determined that the ALJ's credibility findings and the hypothetical question were supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the Commissioner's decision was affirmed, and the plaintiff's action was dismissed.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActALJ decision reviewTreating physician opinionMedical evidenceResidual functional capacityVocational expert testimonySubstantial evidenceHarmless errorChronic pain
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 1989

Davenport v. Taylor Feed Mill

Plaintiff, Douglas Wayne Davenport, an employee of Taylor Feed Mill, was injured on October 3, 1987, sustaining a ruptured lumbar disc and subsequently received a sixty percent occupational disability award from the Warren County Chancery Court. Defendant appealed the judgment on three grounds: the physician's anatomical impairment rating based on an old medical guideline edition, the vocational expert's testimony using a hypothetical question based on facts not fully in evidence, and the award of a lump sum payment. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision on the first two issues, concluding that the older guideline was permissible given the focus on vocational disability, and the hypothetical question's phrasing was within the trial court's discretion. However, the court reversed the lump sum payment award, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate special needs or exceptional circumstances, remanding the case for accrued benefits to be paid according to the statutory periodic payment scheme.

Occupational DisabilityAnatomical ImpairmentVocational DisabilityLump Sum Payment ReversalMedical Guideline EditionExpert Witness TestimonyHypothetical Question ValidityPermanent Partial DisabilityTennessee Workers' CompensationBack Injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Purkey v. American Home Assurance Co.

The Tennessee Supreme Court addressed three certified questions from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee concerning the validity of household or family exclusion clauses in automobile insurance liability policies under Tennessee law and public policy. Petitioner Janice W. Purkey argued that these exclusions were void following amendments to the Tennessee Financial Responsibility Act and the abolition of intrafamily tort immunity. However, the Court referenced its prior consistent rulings upholding such clauses and emphasized Tennessee Code Annotated § 56-7-121, which explicitly permits contractual exclusions 'notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary.' The Court concluded that such exclusions do not violate Tennessee law or public policy, thereby answering the first certified question in the negative and declining to address the remaining questions.

Automobile InsuranceLiability CoverageHousehold Exclusion ClauseFamily Exclusion ClauseTennessee LawPublic PolicyFinancial Responsibility ActContract InterpretationIntrafamily Tort ImmunityCertified Questions
References
18
Case No. M2008-00482-CCA-R9-CO
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Turner

Thomas L. Turner, II, was arrested for robbery and homicide and questioned by Smyrna police after receiving Miranda warnings. During the pre-waiver interrogation, Turner made several ambiguous statements about wanting an attorney and accessing his lawyer's phone number. He subsequently signed a Miranda waiver form. Later in the interview, he unequivocally invoked his right to counsel, at which point questioning ceased. The trial court suppressed statements made after the cell phone request, deeming it an unequivocal invocation, but the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed this finding. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision, holding that Turner's pre-waiver references to counsel were ambiguous, and the officers properly limited their questioning to clarification until a valid waiver was obtained. The Court also clarified the distinction between standards for pre-waiver and post-waiver invocations of the right to counsel.

Miranda RightsRight to CounselEquivocal RequestUnequivocal RequestCustodial InterrogationWaiver of RightsSuppression of EvidenceFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentTennessee Constitution
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1937

Cocke & Braden v. Ayer

The case concerns Ewell J. Ayer, who suffered personal injuries after being struck by a truck driven by Ed Foran. Ayer secured a judgment for $19,000 against Foran and his employers, Cocke & Braden. The Court of Civil Appeals, Seventh District, certified questions to the Commission of Appeals, Section A, primarily asking whether Foran was an independent contractor. The opinion details the contractual agreement and testimony regarding Cocke & Braden's control over Foran's work. After reviewing the facts and applicable precedents, the Commission of Appeals affirmed that Foran was, as a matter of law, an independent contractor. This decision rendered a second certified question immaterial.

Independent ContractorVicarious LiabilityTort LawCertified QuestionsTexas LawMaster-Servant RelationshipControl TestEmployment LawTrucking AccidentPersonal Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TXU Generation Co. v. Public Utility Commission

The Texas Court of Appeals, Austin, reviewed a direct appeal challenging the Public Utility Commission's Wholesale Market Oversight (WMO) Rule. Appellants, a group of market participants, argued the rule exceeded the Commission's statutory authority, was unconstitutionally vague, constituted an unconstitutional taking, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) regarding notice and concise statement of authority. The court, led by Justice Bea Ann Smith, affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule. It held that the Commission possessed broad authority under PURA to regulate the wholesale electricity market to protect public interest, consumers, and ensure reasonably priced ancillary services, even if some prohibited conduct was unintentional. The court also found the rule provided sufficient notice and did not invite arbitrary enforcement, nor did it constitute an unconstitutional taking or violate APA procedures. Ultimately, the court affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule, concluding that it reasonably promotes competition and fulfills legislative goals for the electricity market.

Electricity RegulationWholesale Energy MarketPublic Utility CommissionAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationConstitutional ChallengesMarket Power AbuseConsumer ProtectionTexas LawDirect Appeal
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snyder v. LTG Lufttechnische GmbH

The Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed two certified questions from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee concerning product liability actions. The central issue was whether defendants could present evidence of the plaintiff's employer's actions (alteration, improper maintenance, or abnormal use of the product) as contributing to the plaintiff's injuries, despite the employer's tort immunity under workers' compensation law. The Court affirmed that such evidence is admissible to establish cause-in-fact. However, the jury may not assess fault against the employer, ensuring the employer's immunity is maintained while allowing defendants to present a complete defense. The Court declined to reconsider its prior ruling in Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co. and deemed the second certified question unnecessary to address.

Products LiabilityComparative FaultEmployer ImmunityWorkers' CompensationCause-in-FactProximate CauseStrict LiabilityNegligenceCertified QuestionsTennessee Law
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,152 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