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. 2015-08-0001 / 78521-2014
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2015

Ellis, John v. A Air-One Service

This interlocutory appeal concerns an employee who suffered a back injury while working as an HVAC service technician. The employer denied the workers' compensation claim, citing a positive drug test and its status as a certified drug-free workplace. However, a subsequent drug test yielded a negative result. The trial court determined that the employer's defense of illegal drug use, as codified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-110(a)(3), was not supported by the evidence. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the record and affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the employee had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption that illegal drug use was the proximate cause of the injury with clear and convincing evidence. The case has been remanded for further necessary proceedings.

Workers' Compensation AppealsEmployee Injury ClaimEmployer Drug PolicyDrug Test ResultsIllegal Drug Use DefenseProximate Cause of InjuryRebuttal of PresumptionHerniated Disk SurgeryHVAC Service IndustryTennessee Workers' Comp Law
References
5
Case No. 2015-08-0001
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2015

Ellis, John v. A AIR-One

Employee John D. Ellis filed a request for an Expedited Hearing after his employer, A Air-One Services, and its insurer, Auto Owners' Insurance, denied his workers' compensation claim based on an illegal drug usage defense. An initial urine drug test was positive for methamphetamines, but a subsequent hair sample test was negative. The Court found Mr. Ellis' testimony, denying drug use as the proximate cause of his September 19, 2014 back injury, to be credible. Due to conflicting drug test results and the absence of evidence supporting the defense, the Court ruled that the employer's illegal drug usage defense was not supported by the evidence.

illegal drug usage defenseproximate causeconflicting drug testsback injuryexpedited hearingTennessee Code AnnotatedWorkers' Compensation Claimsmedical benefitstemporary disability benefitsL2-L3 disc herniation
References
1
Case No. Docket No. 2018-06-2162, State File No. 69647-2018
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2020

Woodard, Denny v. Freeman Expositions, LLC

Mr. Woodard, a stagehand for Freeman Expositions, LLC, was injured when a top-heavy cart loaded with Masonite fell on his left ankle and right arm. Freeman denied the claim based on affirmative defenses of willful misconduct (violating a "push, don't pull" rule) and illegal drug use (positive drug test for oxycodone and marijuana). The Court found Mr. Woodard was likely to prevail, concluding that he did not violate the rule, the cart was dangerous, and there was insufficient evidence linking his drug use to the injury. The Court ordered Freeman to provide medical treatment and pay temporary total disability benefits for six weeks.

Willful MisconductIllegal Drug UseSafety Rule ViolationTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsAverage Weekly WageProximate CauseAffirmative DefensesStagehand InjuryCart Accident
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 1996

Isnardi v. Genovese Drug Stores, Inc.

Thomas Isnardi was injured on September 13, 1993, after falling from a scaffold while performing demolition work on premises owned by Genovese Drug Stores, Inc. He sued Genovese and the general contractor, Robbins & Cowan, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide adequate scaffolding. Robbins & Cowan, Inc. then filed a third-party action against Joe Demasco, Isnardi's employer. The Supreme Court granted Isnardi summary judgment on liability. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, denying the plaintiff's motion, as there was a factual dispute regarding whether Isnardi was a recalcitrant worker who refused to use a provided safe "pipe" scaffold, opting instead for an allegedly less stable "Baker" scaffold.

Personal InjuryScaffold FallDemolition WorkRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentLabor LawConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationAppellate Reversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Food & Drug Administration

This Memorandum and Order addresses several motions in a case brought by environmental and public interest groups against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The plaintiffs sought to compel the FDA to initiate proceedings to withdraw approval of certain antibiotics used non-therapeutically in livestock. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to strike certain documents, adopted the Government's proposed schedule for complying with a previous order, and denied the Government's motion for a stay pending appeal. The judge found the FDA's decades-long delay in fulfilling its statutory duty to be unreasonable, justifying the imposition of a compliance timetable.

Antibiotic ResistanceAnimal Feed RegulationFDA EnforcementAdministrative Procedure ActFood, Drug, and Cosmetic ActMandamusJudicial ReviewStay Pending AppealSummary JudgmentPublic Health
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cowan v. MaBSTOA

Plaintiff, an employee of the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (M&B), was fired for using cocaine and stealing company property. He filed a lawsuit alleging a violation of his rights under the Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiff had previously participated in M&B's employee assistance program for drug abusers but abandoned it and returned to cocaine use. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, determining that the plaintiff was not protected by the Rehabilitation Act as he was a current illegal drug user and his misconduct rendered him unqualified for his supervisory position, which involved public safety. The decision affirmed that egregious misconduct is a sufficient basis for dismissal, irrespective of an employee's disability.

Rehabilitation Actdrug abuseemployment discriminationsummary judgmentmisconductpublic safetycocaine addictionwrongful terminationfederal lawemployer liability
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Smalls

The petitioner sought an order under CPLR 3102 (c) to compel Maritime Overseas Corporation (MOC) to disclose the identities of employees who reported her alleged illegal drug use on company premises, leading to her termination. MOC argued against disclosure, claiming the employees' statements were protected by qualified privilege and that the petitioner failed to prove actual malice as required. MOC also posited an absolute privilege based on public policy against workplace drug use. The court, however, found no evidence that the statements were made in good faith, noting a lack of verification efforts. Consequently, the claim of qualified privilege was rejected. Additionally, the court denied the absolute privilege argument, citing public policy concerns about encouraging baseless accusations and the potential harm to innocent employees. The court granted the petitioner's request for preaction disclosure.

Preaction DisclosureCPLR 3102(c)Workplace Drug UseEmployee TerminationQualified PrivilegeAbsolute PrivilegeMaliceConfidentialityDiscoveryDefamation
References
5
Case No. W2001-02829-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2003

Michael Higgins v. Sheriff A.C.Gilles Jr.

Michael Higgins, an off-duty deputy sheriff, was arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia and subsequently terminated after refusing two direct orders to submit to a drug test. He later requested a test after consulting an attorney, but his request was denied. The Civil Service Merit Board upheld his termination for insubordination and possession/use of illegal drugs, a decision affirmed by the chancery court. The Court of Appeals found material evidence supporting the Merit Board's decision, ruling that the presence of Association representatives at his interrogation fulfilled his right to consultation and that a three-day delay for a drug test was unreasonable. Consequently, the chancery court's order was affirmed.

Police DisciplineTermination AppealDrug Use AllegationsInsubordinationRight to CounselAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewLaw Enforcement MisconductCivil ServiceUrinalysis
References
12
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 23413
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2023

Gur Assoc. LLC v. Convenience on Eight Corp.

The New York Civil Court denied a motion by Convenience on Eight Corporation (tenant) to dismiss a commercial holdover proceeding initiated by Gur Associates LLC (landlord). The landlord sought eviction due to the premises' alleged illegal use for unlicensed cannabis sales by an undertenant, Bing Bong Candy Shop Inc. The tenant's motion, which also sought to vacate a default, cited improper service, defective notices, insufficient allegations of illegal use, and waiver by rent acceptance. The court found that the landlord adequately pleaded illegal use under RPAPL 715-a (4), rejecting the tenant's arguments regarding service, notice requirements, and the claim that rent acceptance constituted a waiver, citing strong public policy against illegal use.

Commercial LeaseHoldover ProceedingIllegal UseCannabis SalesUnlicensed BusinessEvictionPersonal JurisdictionService of ProcessMotion to DismissDefault Judgment
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Skinner v. City of Amsterdam

Plaintiff Rick E. Skinner, a former employee of the City of Amsterdam, filed an employment discrimination action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He claimed a hostile work environment, retaliation for filing a complaint with the DOT, adverse employment action, improper drug tests, and improper disclosure of confidential information. The defendant, City of Amsterdam, filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. The court found that the plaintiff was not disabled under the ADA as he continued illegal drug use, the alleged harassment was not severe enough, and his retaliation claims lacked a causal connection or protected activity. The drug testing and disclosure claims were also dismissed as permissible under the ADA given the context of former substance abuse.

Employment DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActADASummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationDrug TestingConfidential InformationSubstance AbuseDisability Discrimination
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 3,421 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