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

Copelin v. Reed Tool Co.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment against an appellant who sought damages for loss of consortium after her husband, George Copelin, was injured at work in 1979. The appellee, his employer and a workers' compensation subscriber, argued that the appellant's derivative claim was barred because the husband's negligence action was precluded by the Workers' Compensation Act. The court held that if the injury was intentionally inflicted, the cause of action would not be barred, and thus the question of intentional misconduct was a material issue of fact. Additionally, the court determined that the appellant's claim for loss of consortium is her separate property and cannot be forfeited by her husband's workers' compensation agreement. Consequently, the trial court's summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Loss of ConsortiumWorkers' Compensation ActSummary JudgmentIntentional MisconductGross NegligenceSeparate PropertyMarital RelationshipDerivative ClaimCommon Law LiabilityAccidental Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paisley v. Coin Device Corp.

Plaintiffs Dougal Paisley and Rohan Christie, employees of Coin Device Corporation, were terminated after being arrested for missing money, despite charges being dismissed. They subsequently filed an action against Coin Device Corporation, Biju Thomas, and Brian Gibbons, alleging malicious prosecution, wrongful termination, negligence, and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss these claims. On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, ruling that the defendants were not liable for malicious prosecution as they merely provided information to the police, who made the arrest decision. Furthermore, the court found the wrongful termination claims invalid due to the plaintiffs' at-will employment status, and the negligence claims barred by Workers' Compensation Law, leading to the dismissal of all specified claims against the appellants.

malicious prosecutionwrongful terminationnegligenceloss of consortiumpunitive damagesat-will employmentWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211appealemployer liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kinzer v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville

This case involves plaintiffs Randolph Kinzer, who alleges excessive force by a park police officer, and his wife, Mona Lisa Kinzer, who asserts a state-law claim for loss of consortium. Defendants John A. Wells, IV, and Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County moved to dismiss Mona Lisa Kinzer's loss-of-consortium claim, arguing it is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court denied the motion, clarifying that a loss-of-consortium claim, if authorized by state law (Tennessee in this instance), can be asserted as a pendent state-law claim alongside a federal § 1983 claim. The decision emphasizes the distinction between claims brought "under" federal statutes and "alongside" them via supplemental jurisdiction, concluding that such a state-law claim does not conflict with the purposes of § 1983.

42 U.S.C. § 1983Loss of ConsortiumPendent JurisdictionState Law ClaimsFederal Question JurisdictionExcessive ForcePolice MisconductConstitutional RightsSupplemental JurisdictionRule 12(b)(6) Dismissal
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Champagne v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Selma Champagne appealed an order denying her motion for summary judgment and granting cross-motions by State Farm and John L. Homan. The case originated from a 1987 motor vehicle accident where Homan allegedly struck Samuel Champagne, who later settled with State Farm for the policy limit. Selma, Samuel's wife, then sought a declaratory judgment that State Farm was obligated to defend and indemnify Homan in her separate suit for loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to both defendants. The appellate court modified the order, denying Homan's cross-motion, ruling that Selma's loss of consortium claim remained viable despite her husband's settlement as she was not a party to it. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment for State Farm, holding that State Farm had fulfilled its policy obligations by paying the "per person" bodily injury limit to Samuel, as loss of consortium damages are derivative and do not constitute a separate "bodily injury" under the insurance policy.

Loss of ConsortiumMotor Vehicle AccidentDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentInsurance Policy LimitsBodily InjuryDerivative ClaimSettlementAppellate ReviewPolicy Interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibson v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.

John Gibson, a seaman, suffered a heart attack in 1970 while working aboard the vessel Seawitch. His wife, Anna Gibson, subsequently initiated an action in February 1977 against his employer, American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, claiming damages for loss of consortium. American Export sought to dismiss her complaint, contending that spouses of injured seamen lacked a claim for loss of consortium under general maritime law at the time, and that the landmark Supreme Court decision in American Export Lines v Alvez (1980), which established this right, should not be retroactively applied. The court thoroughly reviewed the evolution of maritime law concerning loss of consortium, referencing key decisions such as Moragne (1970), Sea-Land Servs. v Gaudet (1974), and Alvez (1980). Ultimately, the court denied American Export's motion, ruling that the Alvez decision should be applied retroactively to cases like Mrs. Gibson's, where the plaintiff was actively challenging existing legal precedents prior to the Alvez ruling.

RetroactivityLoss of ConsortiumMaritime LawSeaman's RightsPersonal InjuryGeneral Maritime LawSpousal ClaimsFederal Maritime LawAppellate ReviewTort Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. State

Jane Doe, a registered nurse, contracted HIV after being stuck by a contaminated needle while restraining an agitated AIDS patient at Faxton Hospital. Correction officers present refused to assist the hospital staff. Jane Doe and her husband, Joseph Doe, sued the State for negligence. The Court of Claims found the State negligent and awarded significant damages, including for past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of consortium. On appeal, the claimants challenged the limitation of Jane Doe's future economic loss to her post-injury life expectancy and the constitutionality of CPLR article 50-B. The State cross-appealed the damages. The appellate court modified the judgment, ruling that future economic loss should be based on pre-injury life expectancy, and affirmed the constitutionality of CPLR article 50-B and the damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of consortium.

negligenceHIV exposureAIDS diagnosispersonal injury damagesfuture lost wagespain and suffering compensationloss of consortiumCPLR Article 50-Bstructured judgmentsconstitutional challenge
References
47
Case No. 03A01-9902-CV-00049
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 1999

William D. Hunley, Jr., Brenda K Hunley, & Velvac Inc. v. Silver Furniture Mfg. Co. & Tab Service Corp., - Dissenting

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr. argues against the majority's decision to extend a workers' compensation carrier's subrogation rights to Mrs. Hunley's loss of consortium claim. He asserts that such claims, being a separate cause of action and involving non-economic damages, do not fall under the purview of Tennessee's subrogation statute, T.C.A. § 50-6-112(c)(1). The judge disputes the relevance of prior case law, *Sexton v. Tri-Cities Insulation, Inc.* and *Beam v. Maryland Casualty Co.*, citing a more recent Supreme Court decision, *Jordan v. Baptist Three Rivers Hosp.*, which he believes implicitly alters previous interpretations regarding wrongful death and consortium claims. He concludes that the statutory language does not support extending subrogation to the reasonable settlement value of a spouse's separate loss of consortium claim and would advocate for reversing the trial court's judgment and remanding the case to assess the reasonableness of the settlement allocation.

Subrogation RightsLoss of Consortium ClaimDerivative ActionsWorkers' Compensation CarrierThird-Party TortfeasorStatutory ConstructionTennessee LawAppellate DissentSettlement ProceedsDamages Allocation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 1997

Riley v. Champion International Corp.

This case involves a lawsuit brought by Charles and Helen Riley against Champion International Corporation. Charles Riley, an independent logging contractor, contracted Lyme disease from a tick bite on Champion's property. Plaintiffs alleged negligence, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract for Champion's failure to warn about Lyme disease, and Helen Riley claimed loss of consortium and household services. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment on most tort claims but denying it for breach of contract. The Chief Judge adopted parts of this, affirming summary judgment on premises liability and misrepresentation negligence claims. However, the Chief Judge overruled the Magistrate Judge's conclusion on the "increased risk of harm" prong of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Champion's failure to provide safety information increased the risk of developing a chronic Lyme infection. Consequently, claims for breach of contract, negligent performance, gross negligence, loss of consortium, loss of household services, and punitive damages were revived for trial.

NegligenceBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLyme DiseaseIndependent ContractorDuty to WarnAssumed DutyGross NegligenceLoss of Consortium
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thurmon v. Sellers

This case concerns consolidated appeals arising from a fatal car accident where a five-year-old child died and others sustained injuries. Plaintiffs Dana Scott and Shane Thurmon, parents of the deceased, and Carl J. Fuhs, the other driver, sued Donald E. Sellers, Sr., and his son, Donald Edward Sellers, Jr. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of vicarious liability under respondeat superior but reversed the dismissal under the family purpose doctrine, finding Mr. Sellers vicariously liable. The court also held that parents can recover filial consortium damages in wrongful death actions and affirmed the wrongful death award for Mrs. Scott and the negligent infliction of emotional distress award for Mr. Fuhs. The case is remanded for judgment consistent with the opinion.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorFamily Purpose DoctrineLoss of Filial ConsortiumNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressAppellate ReviewAutomobile AccidentOn Call Employee Liability
References
0
Case No. 3-92-151-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1993

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas High-Speed Rail Authority and Texas TGV Consortium

Appellant Southwest Airlines Co. appealed the dismissal of its suit for judicial review against the Texas High-Speed Rail Authority and Texas TGV Consortium. The district court dismissed the case, citing a lack of jurisdiction and Southwest's lack of standing to challenge the Authority's decision to award a high-speed rail franchise to Texas TGV. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that Section 19 of the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act (APTRA) is a procedural provision and does not independently create a right to judicial review. Furthermore, Southwest failed to demonstrate a vested property right that would entitle it to judicial review apart from statutory authority, as its CAB certificate was insufficient and its claim against "illegal competition" was not based on a permit or regulation from the Authority. The court also found no harm in the trial court's failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Judicial ReviewJurisdictionStandingAdministrative LawHigh-Speed RailFranchiseProperty RightsDue ProcessTexasCourt of Appeals
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 1,713 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