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. W2012-00274-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2013

Gwendolyn Jeffrey v. City of Memphis

Gwendolyn Jeffrey, widow of firefighter Wendell Jeffrey, sought "Heart, Hypertension, and Lung" (HHL) benefits from the City of Memphis after her husband's death from cardiac arrhythmia. The City denied her claim, leading to an appeal before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ found that the City had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of causation between Jeffrey's employment and his cardiac condition, and Mrs. Jeffrey failed to prove causation by a preponderance of the evidence. The chancery court affirmed the ALJ's decision, acknowledging that it might have ruled differently but found no unlawful procedure, arbitrary conduct, or insubstantial evidence. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the chancery court's decision, agreeing that the City provided competent medical proof to rebut the presumption and that Mrs. Jeffrey did not prove a substantial causal connection.

Firefighter BenefitsCardiac ConditionStatutory PresumptionCausationAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ)Chancery Court AppealAppellate ReviewHHL ProgramMedical EvidencePreponderance of Evidence
References
6
Case No. VNO 0491968
Regular
Oct 17, 2007

JEFFREY ZAJDEL vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LEGALLY UNINSURED, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further analyze the apportionment of permanent disability in Jeffrey Zajdel's case. While affirming his overall permanent disability as 100% before apportionment, the Board found that the medical evidence regarding apportionment was insufficient. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial level for further development of the record on the issue of apportionment, allowing for additional medical reports or cross-examination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryHeart InjuryHypertensionBrain InjuryTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityApportionmentMedical EvidenceSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. 07-21-00008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2021

Jeffrey J. Markey v. Kathryn L. Markey

Jeffrey J. Markey appealed a final divorce decree from Kathryn L. Markey, challenging the child support calculation and the division of community property due to unvalued income tax liabilities. The Court of Appeals, Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo, found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering Jeffrey's earning capacity and various income sources beyond just current earnings for child support. The court also held that it was not an abuse of discretion to divide the community estate without first calculating income tax liability, nor to disregard Jeffrey's estimates for tax liabilities. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

DivorceChild SupportProperty DivisionIncome Tax LiabilityEarning CapacityCommunity EstateAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Family LawMemorandum Opinion
References
11
Case No. 03-09-00159-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

Texas Department of Transportation// Texas Weekly Advocate and Dr. Jeffrey White v. Texas Weekly Advocate and Dr. Jeffrey White// Cross-Appellee, Texas Department of Transportation

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) amended its crash report form, removing a space for driver telephone numbers. Texas Weekly Advocate and Dr. Jeffrey White (Plaintiffs) sued TxDOT under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA), arguing that TxDOT failed to comply with proper rulemaking procedures. The trial court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs on their APA claim, enjoining TxDOT, but dismissed the UDJA claim and denied attorney's fees. On appeal, the court vacated the trial court's APA injunction and dismissed that part of the cause as moot, as TxDOT had subsequently completed the required rulemaking process. Additionally, the Plaintiffs' UDJA claim was deemed moot due to redundancy with the APA claim, and the appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of attorney's fees, finding no abuse of discretion as the UDJA claim did not substantially broaden the action already provided by the APA.

Administrative Procedure ActUniform Declaratory Judgments ActMootnessAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentInjunctive ReliefRulemaking ProceduresCrash Report FormTexas Department of TransportationAppellate Jurisdiction
References
10
Case No. 04-14-00256-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2015

Jeffrey Lee v. State

The appellant, Jeffrey Lee, appeals a judgment of conviction for aggravated robbery. The brief argues that the evidence presented by the State was legally insufficient to prove the appellant was the perpetrator, primarily due to the complainant's and co-worker's failure to identify him in court. Although fingerprints linked to the defendant were found and photo arrays were used, the brief contends that the connection between the photo identification and the in-court defendant was not sufficiently established, leading to an unreasonable inference by the jury. The appellant seeks to reverse the judgment and for a judgment of acquittal.

Aggravated RobberyInsufficient EvidenceIdentificationPhoto ArrayFingerprintsCriminal AppealTexas LawPerpetrator IdentityWitness Testimony
References
10
Case No. M2019-01693-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2020

Julie Clark v. Jeffrey Givens

This case concerns an oral contract for residential construction services between homeowner Julie Clark and contractor Jeffrey Givens. Clark sued Givens and his wife, alleging violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and seeking a refund for uncompleted work. The Givens counter-claimed for breach of contract. The trial court rescinded the contract, citing a mutual mistake regarding the time of completion, and dismissed all claims. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that a disagreement on the completion timeline is not a material mistake warranting rescission in a construction contract without a 'time is of the essence' clause. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the original claims.

Construction ContractOral AgreementContract DisputeTennessee Consumer Protection ActBreach of ContractMutual MistakeContract RescissionAppellate CourtRemandTime is of the Essence
References
18
Case No. 535356
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Jeffrey Christie

Claimant Jeffrey Christie, a tour manager for Universal Music Group (doing business as Def Jam Records), sustained injuries in August 2018 when he was assaulted and shot in Missouri. His workers' compensation claim, alleging injury to his right leg and posttraumatic stress disorder, was controverted by the employer and its carrier, who argued he was an independent contractor. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found Christie to be an employee and that prima facie medical evidence existed for work-related injuries. The carrier's subsequent application for review by the Workers' Compensation Board was denied for failing to specify an objection to the WCLJ's decision, as required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b). The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the Board's discretion to deny review for non-compliance, noting that a recently enacted law, Workers' Compensation Law § 23-a, which would provide leniency for application defects, was not yet effective at the time of the carrier's application.

Workers' Compensation BoardApplication for ReviewProcedural ComplianceAppellate Division Third DepartmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent Contractor StatusWCLJ Decision ReviewForm RB-89 RequirementsRegulatory Non-complianceStatutory Effective Date
References
13
Case No. 14-10-00474-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2011

Jeffrey Pitsenbarger v. Cytec Industries, Inc.

Jeffrey Pitsenbarger sued Cytec Industries, Inc. for breach of contract, alleging damages to a chemical trailer. Pitsenbarger's claim stemmed from an assignment of rights from Hub City Environmental, LLC, which had leased the trailer from Pitsenbarger and rented it to Cytec. Cytec successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing Pitsenbarger lacked a direct contract and Hub City had no valid assignable claim. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, citing Pitsenbarger's inadequate briefing and failure to present sufficient evidence. Additionally, the denial of Pitsenbarger's motion for a new trial was upheld, as no abuse of discretion was found.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureWaiver of ErrorSufficiency of EvidenceDe Novo ReviewAbuse of DiscretionAssignment of RightsLease AgreementCivil Procedure
References
15
Case No. M2010-02553-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2011

Jeffrey L. Dillon v. NICA, Inc.

Jeffrey L. Dillon, a courier, sued NICA, Inc., Thomas M. McGrath, and others after his insurance claim for a workplace injury was denied. He alleged breach of contract, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and conspiracy to evade the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act. The trial court found Dillon to be an employee, not an independent contractor, and a jury found NICA and McGrath liable for violating the Consumer Protection Act, awarding compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the finding of employment status and the Consumer Protection Act violation. However, it vacated the punitive damages award, citing that the Act does not authorize such damages, and remanded the case for consideration of treble damages.

Workers' CompensationConsumer Protection ActIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusInsurance BenefitsPunitive DamagesTreble DamagesBreach of ContractFraudAppellate Review
References
40
Case No. E2004-00422-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2004

Jeffrey Scott West v. Sharon Ann West

Jeffrey Scott West (Father) filed a petition to modify the parties' Permanent Parenting Plan, seeking to require Sharon Ann West (Mother) to pay child support. The trial court found a substantial and material change in circumstances due to Mother having a two-year gross income exceeding $25,000, ordering her to pay $290 per month in child support. Mother appealed, arguing errors in the child support order and its calculation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the circumstances justifying the original downward deviation in child support had changed and that child support is based on all income sources. The court also declined to address issues not raised at the trial court level.

Child support modificationPermanent Parenting PlanMaterial change in circumstancesIncome calculationMarital property distributionDisability and child supportAppellate review of family lawFinancial circumstancesMedical evidenceSpousal support as income
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 224 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