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. E2024-00779-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2025

JEFF HURST v. CITY OF MORRISTOWN

This case involves an appeal concerning a Governmental Tort Liability Act claim where Jeff Hurst, as plaintiff, sued the City of Morristown following a fatal collision involving his father and a city street sweeper. The trial court determined the City was 51% at fault for negligent operation, citing failures such as not activating water jets, operating below the speed limit without adequate warnings, and non-compliance with MUTCD safety standards. The City appealed, asserting immunity under discretionary function and public duty doctrines. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings on both negligence and the inapplicability of immunity. Additionally, the court upheld the exclusion of medical expenses due to the lack of expert testimony regarding their necessity.

Governmental Tort Liability ActNegligenceStreet Sweeper AccidentComparative FaultImmunity WaiverDiscretionary FunctionPublic Duty DoctrineMUTCD ComplianceTraffic Control DevicesMedical Expenses
References
31
Case No. W1999-00445-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2000

Johnna Hayes v. Jeff Hayes

This appeal concerns a dispute over child support obligations and the enforcement of a promissory note between Johnna Lea Hayes (Beuerlein) and Jeff C. Hayes. The trial court made several findings, including Mr. Hayes' annual income, child support obligation, arrearage, and Ms. Beuerlein's debt under a promissory note. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's discretion to apply child support retroactively but reversed its calculation of Mr. Hayes' income by excluding certain business expenses. It also reversed the trial court's decision to set off Mr. Hayes' child support obligation against Ms. Beuerlein's debt from the promissory note, stating that Mr. Hayes should be granted a judgment for the full amount. The case is remanded for recalculation of income, child support, and a determination of attorney's fees for Mr. Hayes related to the promissory note.

child supportpromissory notemarital dissolution agreementincome calculationretroactive child supportset-offattorney's feesappellate reviewchancery courtTennessee law
References
10
Case No. 01-11-00849-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2013

Jeff Hartley v. Williams Southern Company, LLC

Jeff Hartley, an oil-rig floorman, was injured while performing maintenance on a blowout preventer on an oil well in an intercoastal waterway. He sued his employer, Williams Southern Company, L.L.C., and Hilcorp under the Jones Act, arguing he qualified as a seaman. The employer successfully challenged Hartley’s seaman status in a motion for summary judgment, leading to the case's dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that Hartley's six days of employment did not establish a substantial connection to a vessel in navigation, as required for seaman status under the Jones Act, considering both the nature and duration of his duties.

Jones ActSeaman StatusMaritime LawSummary JudgmentOil Rig WorkerVessel in NavigationSubstantial ConnectionPerils of the SeaEmployment DurationFifth Circuit Precedent
References
21
Case No. M2013-00823-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2014

Jeff and Melissa Fitzpatrick v. State of Tennessee Department of Children's Services

The case involves foster parents, Jeff and Melissa Fitzpatrick, appealing a decision by the Department of Children’s Services (DCS) indicating them for child neglect due to lack of supervision. This arose from an incident where a foster child was found fondling a younger foster sibling on two occasions. While an administrative law judge upheld the lack of supervision, an environmental neglect charge was deemed unfounded. The chancery court affirmed the ALJ's decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of lack of supervision and rejected the Fitzpatricks' due process arguments. However, it reversed the denial of attorney's fees related to the environmental neglect charge, remanding for a determination of those fees.

Foster CareChild NeglectLack of SupervisionEnvironmental NeglectChild-on-Child AbuseAdministrative LawDue ProcessAttorney's FeesAppellate CourtParental Responsibility
References
30
Case No. 05-12-00893-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2014

Texas Mutual Insurance Company & Gloria Williams v. Palmer, Jeff

Jeff Palmer, an employee of Barsh Company, suffered a back injury, leading to a workers’ compensation claim with Texas Mutual Insurance Company (TMIC), adjusted by Gloria Williams. A dispute arose regarding the extent of his injury, causing delays in a pre-authorized surgery. Palmer sued TMIC and Williams for bad faith, alleging violations of common law, the insurance code, and the DTPA. The trial court submitted insurance code claims to the jury despite objections from TMIC, leading to a verdict for Palmer. The Court of Appeals reversed this judgment, ruling that the insurance code claims were not properly pleaded or tried by consent, thus nullifying the damages awarded to Palmer.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceInsurance Bad FaithTexas Insurance Code Section 541.061Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Jury Charge ErrorPleadings RequirementTrial by ConsentAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReversalDamages Voided
References
5
Case No. 07-00-0221-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2001

IBP, Inc. v. Klumpe, Steven M., Jeff Blackburn, Sam Fadduol, Kevin Glasheen, and Fadduol & Glasheen, P.C., Attorneys at Law

IBP, Inc. sued Steven M. Klumpe and his attorney, Jeff Blackburn, alleging misappropriation and theft of trade secrets, tortious interference, conversion, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract. The suit stemmed from Klumpe, an IBP superintendent, taking proprietary 'Crewing Guides' and providing them to Blackburn, who then used them in discovery for Klumpe's stepson's personal injury suit against IBP. The trial court granted summary judgment for Klumpe and Blackburn. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment for claims based on privileged communications during discovery but reversed and remanded claims related to Klumpe's alleged illegal taking of the guides and Blackburn's potential complicity in that action, finding material fact issues remained.

Trade SecretsSummary JudgmentLitigation PrivilegeBreach of ContractCivil ConspiracyDiscovery ProcessAppellate ReviewTheft of Trade SecretsTortious InterferenceConversion
References
51
Case No. 03-15-00019-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2014

Jeff Kaiser, P.C. and Jeffery Benedict Kaiser, A/K/A Jeffrey B. Kaiser v. State

This case involves an appeal by Jeff Kaiser, P.C. and Jeffery Benedict Kaiser against the State of Texas concerning delinquent franchise taxes for the years 2004-2007. The appellants argue that the State's claims are barred by the statute of limitations, asserting that the lawsuit was filed beyond the prescribed limitation periods and that the State's tax lien was untimely. They also contend that the trial court erred by relying on the Comptroller's certificate of delinquency as conclusive evidence, despite the State introducing contradictory evidence that negated the presumption of correctness. Furthermore, the appellants challenge the award of attorney's fees, alleging that the State failed to meet its evidentiary burden with insufficient and non-particularized testimony. The trial court ultimately ruled in favor of the State, deeming the lawsuit timely and the Comptroller's certificate sufficient, and awarded attorney's fees.

Franchise TaxTax DelinquencyStatute of LimitationsAttorney's FeesBurden of ProofPrima Facie EvidenceComptroller's CertificateAppellate ReviewTexas LawCorporate Forfeiture
References
26
Case No. 2-03-014-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2003

Wilbert L. Clewis v. Anthony Hicks, M.D., Jeff Jury, Safeco Insurance Company of America, and Terry Wright

Wilbert L. Clewis sued his employer’s workers’ compensation carrier, Safeco Insurance Company, along with Terry Wright, Dr. Anthony Hicks, and Jeff Jury, alleging unauthorized disclosure of his confidential medical information. The information was released during preparations for an administrative hearing related to Clewis's workers' compensation claim. The trial court granted the appellees' motion for summary judgment and denied Clewis's motion for a new trial, concluding that Texas law did not recognize Clewis's specific invasion of privacy claim against non-doctors under the Medical Practice Act. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the summary judgment or the denial of the new trial motion.

Workers' CompensationMedical Records ConfidentialityInvasion of PrivacySummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureTrial Court ErrorMedical Practice ActTexas LawExpert ReviewMotion for New Trial
References
10
Case No. NO. 03A01-9711-CV-00525
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1998

Jeff Hubrig v. Lockheed-Martin Energy Systems, Inc., Linc Hall, Individually Larry Pierce, Individually, and Jim Kolling, Individually

Plaintiff Jeff Hubrig, a self-described whistleblower, sought damages after his employment termination, alleging it was due to his refusal to participate in or remain silent about illegal corporate activities. The defendants, Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. and several individuals, denied these claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding Hubrig was terminated for time card abuse and sexual harassment. Hubrig appealed, raising issues regarding the pretextual nature of his termination reasons, the viability of a common law retaliatory discharge claim, and outrageous conduct. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Hubrig's misconduct was the sole cause for his termination and that he failed to demonstrate his protected activities were the exclusive reason for his dismissal. The court also clarified that individual supervisors could not be held liable under T.C.A. § 50-1-304.

Retaliatory DischargeWhistleblower ProtectionSummary JudgmentEmployment LawSexual HarassmentTime Card FraudAt-Will EmploymentEmployer LiabilitySupervisor LiabilityWorkplace Misconduct
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giles v. Hometown Folks, LLC

Sharista Giles sued Hometown Folks, LLC, and Jeff Bealer for sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as common law claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Giles alleged that assistant manager Jeff Bealer sexually harassed her, and Hometown Folks failed to take adequate remedial action and retaliated against her by reducing her hours. The Court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing all claims. It found Bealer not liable under Title VII as a supervisor and no evidence of his aiding employer inaction under THRA. Hometown Folks successfully asserted the Faragher/Ellerth defense against the harassment claim due to its anti-harassment policy and prompt termination of Bealer. The retaliation claim failed as Giles's hours reduction was due to her school schedule, not retaliation. Finally, the emotional distress claims were dismissed due to the exclusive remedy provisions of worker's compensation for negligent infliction against Hometown Folks, and because Giles did not demonstrate 'serious mental injury' as defined by Tennessee law for either intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress against both defendants.

Hostile Work EnvironmentSexual HarassmentRetaliation ClaimSummary Judgment MotionEmployer LiabilityConstructive DischargeTitle VII Civil Rights ActTennessee Human Rights ActEmotional Distress ClaimsFaragher/Ellerth Defense
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 61 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