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

Johnson v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority

The plaintiff sought workers’ compensation benefits from the defendant hospital authority for an alleged employment-related injury. The trial court rejected the claim, citing two grounds: the employer's exemption from Workers' Compensation Laws and the expiration of the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court of Tennessee focused on the exemption issue, concluding that the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority, as a governmental hospital authority and a subdivision of the state and county, is exempt from the Workers’ Compensation Act under T.C.A. § 50-6-106(5). The court found that the authority's charter legislation clearly indicates its status as a public instrumentality performing a governmental function. Consequently, the trial court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint was affirmed, as the authority had not elected to operate under the workers’ compensation laws.

Workers' Compensation ExemptionGovernmental ImmunityHospital AuthorityStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawPublic InstrumentalitySubdivision of StateEmployer ExemptionAppellate DecisionAffirmed Decision
References
2
Case No. E2016-02169-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2017

Jerry L. Lawrence v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority

The case involves an appeal stemming from an employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by former employees of a hospital's Security Services Department against the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority. The plaintiffs alleged age and racial discrimination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act, as well as common law retaliatory discharge. The trial court had granted summary judgment to the hospital defendants, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for their claims and that some claims were barred by severance agreements. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the dismissal of the discrimination and retaliation claims and rejecting the appellants' hearsay arguments. The court reiterated that the employees failed to demonstrate they were replaced or treated differently than non-protected individuals, which is essential for a prima facie case.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas Burden-ShiftingTennessee Human Rights ActEmployment-at-Will DoctrineSeverance Agreements
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alexander A. Stratienko, M. D. v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority

This appellate opinion affirms the trial court's judgments in a long-standing case stemming from a 2004 incident where Dr. Stratienko pushed another doctor at Erlanger Hospital. Dr. Stratienko, the plaintiff, appealed several decisions: the granting of partial summary judgment to Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority on claims of breach of contract, inducement of breach, conspiracy, and immunity; the denial of further complaint amendments and discovery; the exclusion of administrative hearing claims; and the finding that he failed to prove intentional interference with business relations. The Court of Appeals found no error, applying the 'law of the case' doctrine for facts previously established in federal courts and upholding the trial court's discretionary rulings. Specifically, the court affirmed that the plaintiff failed to establish the elements for intentional interference with business relations, noting a lack of proof regarding specific third parties, improper means or motive, and demonstrable damages.

Medical DisputesHospital Authority LiabilityBusiness InterferenceAppellate Court ProcedureSummary Judgment StandardPleading AmendmentsDiscovery DisputesLaw of the Case DoctrineMedical PrivilegesEconomic Damages
References
35
Case No. 03-02-00429-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2003

Hospitals and Hospital Systems v. Continental Casualty Company

Hospitals and Hospital Systems appealed a declaratory judgment favoring Continental Casualty Company and other insurers, concerning the application of a one-year statute of limitations (rule 133.305(a)) for workers' compensation medical claims. The claims arose after the 1992 Acute Care Hospital Fee Guideline was invalidated. Hospitals argued the limitations period should be tolled due to prior litigation challenging the guideline and that the Commission waived the rule through a settlement agreement. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, Austin, found no basis for tolling, noting hospitals were not prevented from filing claims earlier. It also ruled that the Commission's executive director lacked authority to waive the rule, and that any waiver could not revive time-barred claims. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the applicability of rule 133.305(a) and barring the Hospitals' claims.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawDeclaratory JudgmentStatute of LimitationsTollingWaiverTexas Court of AppealsFee GuidelinesMedical Dispute ResolutionAgency Rules
References
10
Case No. E1999-00169-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2000

Timothy P. Hancock v. The Chattanooga- Hamilton Cty Hospital Authority , d/b/a T.C. Thompson Children's Hospital

This medical malpractice case concerns the retrospective application of the Supreme Court's decision in Jordan v. Baptist Three Rivers Hospital, which allowed for loss of consortium damages in wrongful death cases. The plaintiffs, Timothy P. Hancock and Tina M. Hancock, sought to amend their complaint to include such damages for the death of their daughter, Breanna Hancock. The trial court dismissed the amendment, ruling that the Jordan decision could not be applied retrospectively because the cause of action accrued before Jordan was decided. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing that a change in judicial construction of a statute affecting vested rights is generally not applied retrospectively unless expressly stated. The court found that Jordan altered vested rights regarding recoverable damages, thus preventing its retrospective application to the instant case.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathLoss of ConsortiumRetroactive ApplicationJudicial PrecedentStatutory ConstructionVested RightsAppellate ReviewTennessee LawNegligence Claims
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2003

Hospitals v. Continental Casualty Co.

This case involves an appeal by various hospitals and hospital systems (referred to as 'Hospitals') against several insurance companies and other entities (collectively, 'Insurers') regarding workers' compensation medical claims. The central issue is whether Texas Worker’s Compensation Commission (the 'Commission') rule 133.305(a), which mandates a one-year filing period for medical dispute resolution claims, bars the Hospitals' claims. The Hospitals argued that the time limit was tolled due to ongoing litigation that invalidated the 1992 Acute Care Hospital Fee Guideline, or that the Commission had waived the rule through a 1997 settlement agreement. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that rule 133.305(a) was neither tolled nor waived. The court found that the Hospitals were not prevented from timely filing claims or seeking an injunction, and that the executive director of the Commission lacked the authority to waive a lawfully enacted agency rule, especially for claims that were already time-barred.

Worker's CompensationMedical ClaimsFee GuidelinesStatute of LimitationsTollingWaiverAdministrative Procedure ActDeclaratory JudgmentInsurance DisputeHospitals
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2007

Salvador-Pajaro v. Port Authority

This case involves a Port Authority police officer who sued the Port Authority for personal injuries, alleging an unsafe workplace in New Jersey. The Port Authority's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was initially denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the motion and dismissing the complaint. The court ruled that New York's Labor Law § 27-a, which was the basis for the General Municipal Law § 205-e claim, does not apply to the Port Authority as an Interstate Compact agency, particularly without concurring legislation from New Jersey. Additionally, New York Labor Law provisions concerning workplace safety do not apply to workplaces located outside of New York, even if both the injured worker and the employer are New York domiciliaries.

Interstate Compact AgencyWorkplace SafetyJurisdictionExtraterritorial ApplicationLabor LawGeneral Municipal LawSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryPort AuthorityEmployer-Employee Relations
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huntington Hospital v. Huntington Hospital Nurses' Ass'n

Huntington Hospital initiated an action under the Federal Arbitration Act to partially vacate an arbitration award, while the Huntington Hospital Nurses’ Association cross-petitioned to confirm it. The dispute originated from the Hospital unilaterally granting two nurses, Betty Evans and Lynn Meyer, longevity pay credits exceeding the ten-year cap stipulated in their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The arbitrator found the Hospital violated the CBA's sections on pay and exclusive bargaining rights. The arbitrator mandated the Hospital roll back excess credits and recover overpayments. The District Court denied the Hospital's petition, dismissing arguments regarding public policy, manifest disregard for law, and lack of award finality, ultimately confirming the arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawFederal Arbitration ActWage DisputesLongevity PayUnion RightsPublic Policy ExceptionManifest Disregard of LawContract Interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Casillo v. St. John's Episcopal Hospital

This case addresses the fees hospitals can charge for patient medical records requested by authorized attorneys. Petitioners Domenic Casillo, Jr. and Barbara Blaskey, represented by Ungar, Gerstman & Pomerance, sought their hospital files from St. John’s Episcopal Hospital for a personal injury lawsuit against Huntington Hilton Hotel. The hospital demanded a flat fee of $35 per patient, while petitioners argued the fee should be capped at 75 cents per page under recent amendments to Public Health Law §§ 17 and 18, effective September 1, 1991. The court ruled that attorneys acting as authorized representatives of patients are "qualified persons" under the Public Health Law and are subject to the 75-cents-per-page cap for reproducing medical records. The court granted the petitioners' application, directing the hospital to comply.

Medical Record FeesPatient AccessHospital PolicyStatutory InterpretationPublic Health LawCPLR DiscoveryAttorney AuthorizationReasonable ChargeHealthcare CostsLitigation Preparation
References
22
Case No. NO. 09-04-368 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2005

Silsbee Hospital, Inc. D/B/A Columbia Silsbee Doctors Hospital v. Lonny George

Lonny George, an employee of Silsbee Hospital, Inc., a nonsubscriber to workers' compensation, sustained injuries and sued the hospital. He had signed a waiver agreement related to an employee benefit plan, which the hospital contended released them from liability for personal injuries. The Court of Appeals examined the waiver agreement's language, applying contract construction rules and the express negligence doctrine, and found it only applied to the parent company, Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corporation, not the subsidiary Hospital, as George's injuries arose from employment with the Hospital. The court also rejected the Hospital's affirmative defenses of ratification, release, waiver, and estoppel. However, the appellate court determined there was harmful error in jury selection due to the trial court's failure to strike two unequivocally biased veniremembers. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

NonsubscriberWorkers' Compensation WaiverEmployee InjuryExpress Negligence RuleJury BiasAppellate ReversalRemand for New TrialContract InterpretationAffirmative DefensesTexas Law
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 5,633 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