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. W2012-00191-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2012

Tikita Jones v. Shelby County Government Civil Service Merit Board & Shelby County Division of Health Services

Tikita Jones, a municipal employee, was terminated from her position with the Shelby County Division of Health Services for unauthorized access to her adult daughter's medical records. The termination was upheld by the Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board and subsequently affirmed by the Chancery Court. Jones appealed, claiming violations of due process rights and a lack of substantial evidence to support the decision. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that Jones received adequate notice of the charges and that substantial and material evidence supported the Board's conclusion that her actions constituted an impermissible access of patient information, beyond her job duties. The court specifically noted that accessing sensitive lab reports was outside her clerical specialist role and her testimony regarding authorization was inconsistent with her daughter's.

Employment terminationConfidentialityHIPAA violationMedical records accessDue processAdministrative lawJudicial reviewClerical specialistEmployee misconductPublic sector employment
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2006

Wagner v. Merit Distribution

The plaintiff, Charles Wagner, an African-American, sued Merit Distribution, Inc., James Austin, Sr., James Austin, Jr., and Austin Truck & Trailer Repair Center, LLC under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging race discrimination, a racially hostile work environment, and retaliatory termination. Wagner also brought a state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, arguing against individual liability, the applicability of § 1981 to retaliation claims, and the merits of Wagner's discrimination claims. The court denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the race discrimination, hostile work environment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, as well as the retaliation claim based on internal complaints, finding sufficient issues of material fact. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted for the retaliation claim specifically based on the filing of an EEOC charge, as the defendants had no knowledge of it at the time of termination.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary Judgment42 U.S.C. § 1981Title VIIAt-will EmploymentEmployer LiabilityIndividual LiabilityPretext
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stone v. Williams

Robert Stone was injured at a Merit service station in Staten Island on April 3, 1977, when he was struck by a car driven by Kerry Williams. A jury assessed Stone's damages at $200,000 and apportioned 20% liability to the Merit service station defendants. The dissenting opinion argues against the majority's view that the service station owed no duty to direct traffic and that its negligence was not a causative factor. Justice Gibbons contends that the service station had a duty of reasonable care to its patrons and that the jury's finding of negligence and proximate cause, based on inadequate staffing and failure to control traffic, was supported by the evidence. He also argues that the $200,000 damage award was not excessive, citing the severity of Stone's injuries, including a broken leg, a mangled hand with a shattered middle finger, and the amputation of a ring finger, resulting in a 40-50% permanent loss of use of his left hand.

Personal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityDuty of CareProximate CauseForeseeabilityJury VerdictDamagesExcessive DamagesAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. 14-0530
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2015

Bnsf Railway Company v. James E. Phillips

This Reply Brief on the Merits by BNSF Railway Company contests the appellate court's judgment affirming a jury's findings in a Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) case involving James E. Phillips. BNSF argues that Phillips failed to provide legally sufficient and reliable expert testimony to establish causation for his spinal injuries, particularly concerning epidemiological studies. The brief also asserts that Phillips's FELA claim was untimely, as evidence indicated his awareness of the injury and its work-related cause before the statutory deadline. Additionally, BNSF challenges the finding of liability under the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) based on general complaints and argues for the erroneous exclusion of contributory negligence and certain rebuttal evidence. BNSF requests the Supreme Court of Texas to reverse the appellate court's judgment and render judgment in its favor or remand for a new trial.

FELACausationExpert TestimonyEpidemiological EvidenceTimelinessStatute of LimitationsLocomotive Inspection Act (LIA)Contributory NegligenceEvidentiary RulingsAppellate Review
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klotz v. Underwood

The case involves a civil action for damages filed by Mr. and Mrs. William E. Klotz (buyers) against Mr. and Mrs. Robert W. Underwood (sellers) following the discovery of hidden structural damage in a residence purchased in Tennessee. The Klotzes alleged deceit under common law and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the Consumer Protection Act claim, asserting its applicability to real estate transactions and isolated sales. On the merits, the court found insufficient evidence to support the buyers' claims of fraud or misrepresentation. Furthermore, the court dismissed the sellers' counterclaim, concluding that the buyers' lawsuit was neither frivolous nor brought for harassment, despite the ultimate weakness of their evidence.

DeceitReal Estate FraudHidden DefectsTennessee Consumer Protection ActCaveat EmptorContract LawCivil LitigationProperty SaleStructural DamageMisrepresentation
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Noel v. Owens-Brockway

The employer appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from March 15, 2000, which deemed their application for review untimely and also affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s decision on the merits. The appellate court noted that the Board possessed discretionary authority to review beyond the 30-day period and had, in fact, addressed the merits of the appeal. Despite the employer challenging only the timeliness on appeal, the court found no reason to disturb the Board’s decision, as its alternative ruling on the merits remained unchallenged, thus providing no grounds for relief.

untimelinessworkers' compensation appealboard reviewdiscretionary authoritymerits reviewunchallenged rulingaffirmationappellate procedureWorkers' Compensation Lawjudicial review
References
2
Case No. ADJ8737025 ADJ9415548
Regular
Jan 21, 2020

HERIBERTO GUILLEN vs. INFINITY STAFFING; AGGCAP INSURANCE, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a defendant's petition to disqualify a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) due to her testimony as a witness in a separate criminal proceeding concerning the applicant. The defendant argued the WCJ was a material witness, expressed an opinion on the merits, or had a doubtful capacity for impartiality. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding her testimony, given under subpoena, did not demonstrate bias nor constituted an unqualified opinion on the case's merits, as she merely explained legal principles. One Commissioner dissented, believing the WCJ's testimony on the impact of the applicant's fraud conviction created an appearance of bias and prejudged the merits of a pending dismissal petition.

Petition for disqualificationWCJ testimonyInsurance Code section 1871.4Penal Code section 118Code of Civil Procedure section 641Rule 9721.12material witnessunqualified opinionappearance of biasnolo contendere
References
8
Case No. M2023-00345-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2025

Michael Dinovo, Jr. v. Kenneth Binkley

Michael DiNovo, Jr. brought a tort action seeking compensation for injuries from an explosion at Southern Energy Company, Inc., arguing he was an independent contractor despite a prior workers' compensation settlement where he conceded being an employee. The Davidson County Circuit Court granted summary judgment to Southern, and the Court of Appeals declined to consider DiNovo’s appeal on the merits due to a technical briefing deficiency regarding record citations. The Supreme Court of Tennessee concluded that the Court of Appeals' opinion was inconsistent with the state's longstanding policy favoring resolution of cases on the merits. Finding that the technical deficiency did not impede the appellate process, the Supreme Court granted DiNovo’s application, vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgment, and remanded the case for consideration on its merits.

Tort actionWorkers' CompensationIndependent Contractor statusFraudulent InducementSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureRecord CitationsWaiver of ArgumentsRemandCourt of Appeals Discretion
References
10
Case No. 2019-07-0191
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2020

Gillum, Mary v. Dollar General Corporation

The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed and remanded a trial court's decision concerning an employee, Mary Gillum, who alleged neck and shoulder injuries from a falling dog food bag at work. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court found the authorized treating physician's opinion sufficient to establish that Ms. Gillum would likely prevail on the merits. The court ordered Dollar General Corporation to provide a panel of physiatrists for nonoperative treatment and awarded temporary disability benefits. Dollar General appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of an injury arising primarily out of employment and that the physician's report did not meet the 50% causation requirement. The Appeals Board, however, found no merit in the employer's arguments, clarifying that a 'lesser evidentiary standard' applies at expedited hearings compared to a hearing on the merits.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingCausation StandardMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsCervical StrainPre-existing ConditionAuthorized Treating PhysicianAppeals Board DecisionRemand
References
6
Case No. LAO 0726907
Regular
May 29, 2007

HABTNESH EZRA vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES

Applicant's counsel, Martin Reiner, is denied disqualification of the Appeals Board and ordered to pay $\$ 2,500$ in sanctions. The Board found Reiner's written comments to be intentionally disruptive and without merit, and his response did not provide good cause to avoid sanctions or grounds for disqualification. The sanctions imposed do not impact the applicant's right to representation or a hearing on the merits of her case.

DisqualificationSanctionsApplicant's CounselWillful IntentDelay ProceedingsImproper MotiveWithout MeritWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor CodeCalifornia Code of Regulations
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,399 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