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. 2015-01-0259
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2016

Strickland, Carolyn v. Aramark

This case involved Carolyn Strickland (Employee) against Aramark (Employer) and Ace American Ins. Co. (Carrier). The case was dismissed with prejudice by Judge Thomas Wyatt on November 4, 2016. Ms. Strickland failed to file for a requisite hearing as ordered by the court, did not attend a scheduled status conference, and did not respond to Aramark's Motion to Dismiss. Consequently, the Court granted the employer's motion, dismissing the employee's claim. The filing fee was taxed to Aramark and/or its carrier, and they were ordered to file a statistical data form.

Failure to ProsecuteDismissalWith PrejudiceProcedural DefaultShow Cause HearingStatus ConferenceMotion to DismissWorkers' Compensation ClaimEmployee RepresentationEmployer Motion
References
0
Case No. 2015-05-0136
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2016

Hickey, Curtis v. Hermitage Hall

This case involves an employee, Curtis Hickey, who filed a Petition for Benefit Determination. The employer, Hermitage Hall, moved for dismissal due to Mr. Hickey's repeated failures to prosecute his claim and comply with court orders, including not requesting a hearing, failing to appear, and not responding to discovery requests. Mr. Hickey's counsel argued that his misconduct was unintentional and occurred while he was unrepresented, stemming from a lack of understanding of complex procedures and a belief that his medical records were private. The Court, however, found Mr. Hickey's actions to be an intentional disregard for court rules and an active refusal to obey orders, noting his continued non-compliance even after retaining counsel. Consequently, the Court granted the employer's motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Failure to ProsecuteDiscovery ViolationsOrder of DismissalWorkers' CompensationProcedural RulesSanctionsNon-ComplianceUnrepresented PartyMedical RecordsIntentional Disregard
References
2
Case No. 2023-06-7650
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2025

Salmon, Marsha v. Octapharma Plasma

The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims at Nashville granted Octapharma Plasma's motion to dismiss with prejudice against Marsha Salmon. Ms. Salmon, the employee, failed to comply with multiple court orders, including providing responses to written discovery and identifying medical experts by the set deadlines. She also neglected to file a written response to the dispositive motion, despite explicit warnings from the Court. Citing Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02(1) and (3) for failure to prosecute and to comply with court orders, the Court deemed Ms. Salmon's efforts to advance her case insufficient and dismissed the claim with prejudice to its refiling.

Motion to DismissFailure to ProsecuteCompliance with Court OrdersWritten DiscoveryMedical ExpertsImpairment RatingProcedural HistoryWorkers' Compensation ClaimsTennessee LawDismissal with Prejudice
References
2
Case No. 2020-03-0245
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2020

Adkisson, Greg v. G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc.

This document is an Agreed Compensation Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice, concerning the case of Greg Adkisson (Employee) against G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc. (Employer). The parties reached this agreement during a telephonic mediation with Specialist Nina Harris on September 17, 2020. The Employee's claims for alleged occupational exposure illnesses and/or injuries, stemming from his work as a heavy equipment operator, are dismissed without prejudice. This allows him to re-file his workers' compensation claim in the future if he becomes partially or totally incapacitated due to an occupational illness, provided it is medically proven to be more than 50% related to his employment, as per T.C.A § 50-6-102(14) and T.C.A. § 50-6-303(a). The Court ordered G.UB.MK to pay a $150.00 filing fee and submit an SD-1 form.

Occupational IllnessHeavy EquipmentSettlement AgreementDismissalTelephonic MediationThird-Party ClaimFuture ClaimsWorkers' CompensationTennessee Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed by former employees (Plaintiffs) against James W. Giddens, as SIPA Trustee for MF Global Inc., and Louis J. Freeh, as Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., MF Global Finance USA, Inc., and MF Global Holdings USA, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the federal WARN Act and the New York WARN Act due to employment termination without sufficient notice. The Court granted the SIPA Trustee's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding the "liquidating fiduciary" principle applicable to MFGI as its statutory purpose was liquidation. However, the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice and with leave to amend, as the factual record did not conclusively establish that the Chapter 11 Debtors were solely liquidating at the time of layoffs, and the complaint was otherwise deficient. Claims for vacation pay and unpaid wages were dismissed without prejudice to be handled in the claims allowance process.

WARN ActNew York WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffsPlant ClosingsBankruptcy ProceedingsCorporate LiquidationChapter 11 ReorganizationSIPA TrusteeLiquidating Fiduciary Principle
References
26
Case No. POM 0264727POM 0267166
Regular
Aug 19, 2008

CELIA MUNOZ vs. THE TOWN CLUB, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY/GAB ROBINS

Here's a summary of the provided case excerpts: In *Fiducia*, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and found applicant sustained industrial injuries but had failed to attend medical exams and hearings, leading to dismissal for good cause. The Board vacated the prior dismissal and remanded for further development of the record, acknowledging that the applicant's failure to attend examinations and hearings warranted dismissal. However, due to lack of current medical evidence, the Board vacated the dismissal and returned the case to the trial level to allow applicant to attend examinations and hearings. In *Munoz*, the defendant sought reconsideration of an order vacating submission and returning the case to the trial calendar to further develop the evidentiary record concerning a lien claimant's charges. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as it was not from a final order and denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of irreparable harm or significant prejudice. The Board emphasized that interlocutory orders to further develop evidence are not subject to reconsideration.

WCABindustrial injurypsycheTMJnasal traumateethblood pressuredismissalgood causetemporary disability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Twardowsky v. Klevenhagen

The case was originally filed in 1986 as a class action, with Angie Austin added as a plaintiff in 1987. After other claims were dismissed, Austin pursued a parallel state court action, leading to the federal case being administratively closed. Austin reopened the federal case in June 1995 after dismissing her state lawsuit. The Court ordered Austin to file an amended complaint within 30 days, but she filed it over 60 days later, without requesting an extension. The Defendants moved to dismiss due to Austin's failure to comply. The Court granted the motion, dismissing the action with prejudice, citing Austin's dilatory conduct and prejudice to the Defendants' ability to prepare a defense over nearly ten years of litigation.

Motion to DismissDismissal with PrejudiceFailure to ProsecuteFailure to Comply with Court OrderDilatory ConductFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(b)Class ActionState Court ActionFederal Court ActionPrior Litigation History
References
4
Case No. ADJ8693165
Regular
Sep 03, 2013

JEREMY VALENCIA vs. AGI PUBLISHING, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded an order imposing sanctions against the injured worker's attorney. This was due to improper service of the sanctions order and lack of sufficient notice, preventing the attorney from an adequate opportunity to be heard. The WCAB denied the petition for disqualification of the judge, finding no evidence of bias. The petition concerning the notice of intention to dismiss the case was dismissed as it was not a final order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsNotice of Intention to DismissWCJInjured WorkerCounselService of ProcessOfficial Address Record
References
5
Case No. ADJ9734483, ADJ9502727
Regular
Oct 08, 2015

JUAN PALMA vs. CORNERSTONE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant whose case, ADJ9502727, was inadvertently dismissed due to a clerical error when he filed a dismissal petition for a duplicative case, ADJ9734483. Although the applicant's petition for reconsideration was untimely and therefore dismissed, the Appeals Board granted removal on its own motion. The Board rescinded the erroneous dismissal order for ADJ9502727, finding it caused significant prejudice and was a correctable clerical mistake. The matter is now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing CaseADJ9502727ADJ9734483WCJremovalclerical erroruntimely petitionrescinded order
References
5
Case No. ADJ833288 (LBO 0385383)
Regular
Jan 29, 2016

MARTIN VALDEZ vs. NATURE'S TREE SERVICE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought reconsideration of an order taking the case off calendar, arguing their attorney was not properly served with prior dismissal notices. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because an order taking a case off calendar is interlocutory and not a final order subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the Board denied the request for removal, stating the applicant had not shown substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The applicant must address the prior dismissal order at the trial level before seeking appellate review.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderDismissal OrderSubstitution of AttorneysLack of ProsecutionService of ProcessInterlocutory OrderFinal Order
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 42,320 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