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

Harman v. Moore's Quality Snack Foods, Inc.

Kimberly Dawn Harman and her husband sued Moore’s Quality Snack Foods, Inc., alleging sexual harassment and discrimination in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) and Federal Civil Rights Acts, also claiming outrageous conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing the claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Tennessee Worker’s Compensation Act (TWCA). The chancellor initially found an implied repeal of the TWCA's exclusive remedy concerning THRA claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the outcome that the plaintiffs' claims under the THRA were not barred but rejected the chancellor's reasoning of implied repeal. The appellate court distinguished the purposes of the two acts, holding that THRA claims for non-physical injuries like humiliation and emotional distress are separate from physical injuries covered by TWCA, and thus, not barred by its exclusive remedy.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationTennessee Human Rights ActWorker's Compensation ActExclusive Remedy ProvisionImplied RepealStatutory ConstructionEmotional DistressLoss of ConsortiumAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Supak v. Zboril

This case involves an appeal concerning the implied dedication of a strip of rural land for public use as a road and the award of attorneys' fees. Landowners Lydia Supak and the Estate of Eugene Kubena challenged a jury's finding of implied dedication and the trial court's order for them to pay attorneys' fees to Burleson County and the Zborils. The appellate court affirmed the finding of implied dedication and the attorneys' fee award against Supak. However, it vacated the judgment imposing attorneys' fees liability against the Estate of Eugene Kubena and the conveyance of property belonging to the Estate of Eugene Kubena, citing the trial court's lack of jurisdiction over the estate's proper representatives or heirs. The court found that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over Eugene Kubena's estate for these parts of the judgment.

Implied DedicationPublic RoadsEasement by PrescriptionLand Use DisputeAttorneys' Fees AwardJurisdiction IssuesEstate LawAppellate ProcedureFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceLegal Sufficiency of Evidence
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2004

Claim of Pache v. Aviation Volunteer Fire Co.

The Workers’ Compensation Board granted benefits to the widow of a fire chief who died of a heart attack, finding an implied contract of coverage under Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law § 30 (2) between Aviation Volunteer Fire Company and the City of New York. The City appealed, contending there was no evidence of FDNY Commissioner approval for such a contract and insufficient proof of its formation. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that the City Charter provisions did not exclusively assign contracting authority to the Commissioner and that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of an implied-in-fact contract, partly due to the City's failure to produce a knowledgeable employee. The court declined to consider a new argument regarding General City Law § 16-a.

Implied contractVolunteer Firefighters’ Benefit LawWorkers' Compensation BoardMunicipal liabilityFatal heart attackAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationCity CharterFire DepartmentContract formation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

I.G. Second Generation Partners, L.P. v. Reade

This case concerns an appeal from multiple orders of the Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Alice Schlesinger. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, tortious interference with contract, and breach of implied contract. The court found that the malicious prosecution claim lacked probable cause, emphasizing that a prior judgment against the plaintiffs created a presumption of probable cause not overcome by subsequent reversal. The abuse of process claim failed as there was no indication of perverted use of process for a collateral advantage. Furthermore, the tortious interference claim was barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and proposed amendments for implied contract theories were properly denied due to a lack of meeting of the minds and absence of unjust enrichment.

malicious prosecutionabuse of processtortious interference with contractbreach of implied contractNoerr-Pennington doctrineprobable causeamendment of complaintunjust enrichmentaffirmationappellate review
References
17
Case No. ADJ414029 (MON 0347065)
Regular
Mar 11, 2010

TRINA R. THOMPSON vs. HARBOR UCLA MEDICAL CENTER, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The applicant sought removal of her case from the assigned judge, arguing the judge erred by allowing defense witness testimony on injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and that this testimony would prejudice the judge's decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the removal petition, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm as reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The WCAB also noted the applicant failed to timely object to the defense witnesses' testimony and that the record contradicted claims of undue delay caused by the judge. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the implied request for disqualification due to untimeliness and procedural defects.

Labor Code section 5310Petition for RemovalDisqualificationAOE/COEPresumption of compensabilityLabor Code section 5402Rebuttable presumptionGood faith personnel actionLabor Code section 3208.3Agreed medical evaluator
References
3
Case No. W2014-02286-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2016

Kim Hardy v. Tournament Players Club at Southwind, Inc., d/b/a TPC Southwind,

The Tennessee Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal to determine if an employee has a private right of action against an employer under the Tennessee Tip Statute (Tenn. Code Ann. section 50-2-107) for improper tip payment. The trial court initially dismissed the employee's claim, finding no such private right. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, relying on its prior 1998 holding in *Owens v. University Club of Memphis*. The Supreme Court found that the *Owens* decision was inconsistent with its subsequent jurisprudence on implying private rights of action, particularly in *Brown* and *Premium Finance*. Consequently, the Court declined to apply the doctrine of legislative inaction and held that no private right of action exists under section 50-2-107. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and affirmed the trial court's dismissal.

Private Right of ActionTennessee Tip StatuteWage RegulationEmployee CompensationImplied Cause of ActionLegislative InactionStatutory InterpretationClass ActionMotion to DismissAppellate Review
References
46
Case No. 03-14-00197-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Graphic Packaging Corporation v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas

This is a reply brief for Graphic Packaging, Inc. in an appeal concerning the application of Texas's franchise tax. Graphic Packaging argues that it properly used the Multistate Tax Compact's three-factor apportionment formula, contending that Texas Tax Code § 171.106(a) did not impliedly repeal the Compact's election or formula. The appellant asserts that the Compact is a valid and binding interstate agreement, not a mere uniform law, and that its mandatory election provision is unambiguous. Furthermore, Graphic Packaging argues that the Compact Election does not violate the Texas Constitution's anti-surrender tax power provision and that the franchise tax qualifies as an "income tax" under the Compact's broad definition.

Franchise TaxTax ApportionmentMultistate Tax CompactContract ClauseTaxation LawState SovereigntyStatutory InterpretationImplied RepealDue ProcessCommerce Clause
References
67
Case No. 03-15-00113-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2015

EMC Corporation v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas

EMC Corporation appeals the denial of its motion for summary judgment, arguing its entitlement to use the Multistate Tax Compact's three-factor apportionment formula for its Texas franchise tax. EMC asserts that the Multistate Tax Compact, codified in Texas, is a binding interstate agreement that was not impliedly repealed by subsequent Texas legislation. The appellant contends that the Texas Franchise Tax qualifies as an "income tax" under the Compact's broad definition, thereby allowing taxpayers to elect the Compact's apportionment method. Disallowing this election, EMC argues, violates the Contracts, Due Process, and Commerce Clauses of the United States Constitution, as well as the Equal and Uniform Clause of the Texas Constitution, by disproportionately representing its business in Texas and imposing an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.

Multistate Tax CompactFranchise TaxApportionment FormulaTax LawTexas Tax CodeInterstate CompactConstitutional LawDue ProcessCommerce ClauseContracts Clause
References
31
Case No. E2000-02748-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2002

Ricky McElhaney v. Howard Barnwell

Plaintiff Ricky W. McElhaney filed a petition in 1998 to disbar his former attorney, Howard B. Barnwell, under a Tennessee statutory scheme. The statutory scheme was repealed in March 2000, and the Trial Court dismissed the petition, holding it lacked jurisdiction. Plaintiff appealed, arguing the repeal should not be applied retrospectively, citing the Tennessee Constitution. The Court of Appeals held that the public act repealing the statute was not solely remedial or procedural and thus must operate prospectively, aligning with Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-101 which protects pending proceedings. Therefore, the Trial Court erred in dismissing the petition, and the case is vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the pre-repeal procedure.

DisbarmentAttorney MisconductStatutory RepealRetrospective LawJurisdictionAppellate ProcedureTennessee ConstitutionLegal EthicsProcedural LawRemedial Law
References
6
Case No. 96-CR-2659; 96-CR-2660
Regular Panel Decision

State v. McFall

This case addresses whether Texas Penal Code Section 32.03, an aggregation provision, can be used to prosecute individuals for fraudulently receiving workers' compensation benefits after the primary statute, Section 32.51, was repealed. John P. McFall was indicted under Section 32.51 for conduct occurring both before and after its repeal. The State argued that Section 32.03 allowed aggregation of incidents as a continuing course of conduct, making the pre-repeal conduct an 'element' that permitted prosecution under the old law. The court held that Section 32.03 is an aggregation provision for determining the grade of an offense, not a standalone offense, and therefore cannot be used to prosecute conduct that ceased to be an offense after the repeal of Section 32.51. Consequently, the trial court's decision to quash the indictments was affirmed, and the State's appeal was overruled.

Workers' Compensation FraudStatutory InterpretationRepealed StatuteAggregation ProvisionIndictmentMotion to QuashTexas Penal CodeContinuing Course of ConductElements of OffenseAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 496 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