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. 01A01-9506-CV-00255
Regular Panel Decision

Vooys v. Turner

The case concerns an appeal by the Husband challenging the trial court's award of post-judgment interest to the Wife on $185,000. These funds were deposited by the Husband with the court clerk as the purchase price for the marital residence, which had been awarded to the Wife. During the initial appeal of the divorce decree, Husband appealed the award of the house and successfully moved to stay execution of the judgment without bond, requesting the funds be placed in an interest-bearing account. After the initial judgment was affirmed, Wife sought post-judgment interest. The trial court granted it, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The appellate court held that a party depositing funds into court does not avoid statutory post-judgment interest unless the payment is an unconditional satisfaction of the judgment, especially when the depositor appeals and obtains a stay, thus depriving the other party of the funds' use.

Post-judgment interestDivorceAppellate reviewFunds deposited in courtStay of executionMarital propertyAlimony in solidoStatutory interpretationRule 67.03Rule 67.04
References
14
Case No. 09-3356
Regular Panel Decision

Placid Oil Co. v. Williams (In re Placid Oil Co.)

This Revised Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in an adversary proceeding initiated by Placid Oil Company, a reorganized debtor from a 1980s Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Placid sought a determination that post-confirmation tort claims, filed by the Williams Defendants (Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants) in Louisiana state court for asbestos exposure, were discharged by Placid's 1988 bankruptcy confirmation order. The claims arose from the death of Mrs. Myra Williams due to mesothelioma, allegedly caused by indirect asbestos exposure from her husband's work clothes while he was employed by Placid at its Black Lake Facility pre-confirmation. Applying the 'pre-petition relationship test,' the bankruptcy court found that Mrs. Williams' exposure constituted a pre-petition 'claim' and that the Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants were 'unknown creditors.' Concluding that constructive notice via newspaper publication was sufficient for these unknown creditors and that appointing a future claims representative was not warranted, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Placid, discharging the tort claims.

Bankruptcy DischargeAsbestos ExposurePost-Confirmation ClaimsUnknown CreditorsDue Process NoticeSummary JudgmentPre-petition Relationship TestMesotheliomaTort LiabilityChapter 11 Reorganization
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jaramillo v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

This is an appeal by writ of error challenging a post-answer default judgment in a worker's compensation case. The Industrial Accident Board ruled in favor of the Appellant, but the Appellee filed a suit to set aside the award. The Appellant failed to appear for trial, resulting in a default judgment for the Appellee. On appeal, the court considered whether an error was apparent on the face of the record, a requirement for a writ of error. The Appellant failed to provide a statement of facts or evidence of its absence, leading the court to presume the regularity of the trial court's judgment. Additionally, the Appellant's complaint regarding a motion for continuance was overruled due to lack of record support. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

worker's compensationdefault judgmentwrit of errorappellate procedurestatement of factsmotion for continuanceTexas lawIndustrial Accident Boardappealevidence
References
12
Case No. 126300 R.D.
Regular Panel Decision

Bazner v. American States Insurance Co.

Walter Bazner, an insulator diagnosed with asbestosis, previously received workers' compensation benefits from L.D. Powell & Company and its insurer, American States Insurance Company, for permanent total disability and medical expenses incurred up to the judgment date. When Bazner incurred additional medical expenses post-judgment, American refused payment, arguing the prior judgment was res judicata and required pre-approval for new expenses. Bazner initiated a new suit, and the trial court sided with him. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Bazner's claim for future medical expenses was not barred, reiterating that such expenses are recoverable under T.C.A. § 50-6-204 and established procedural rules for seeking them via petition in the original action. The court also found Bazner's decision to seek further medical attention from his treating physician reasonable under the circumstances. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding future medical payments and related issues.

AsbestosisOccupational DiseaseFuture Medical ExpensesPost-Judgment CareRes Judicata DefenseEmployer Medical AuthorizationInsurance LiabilityStatutory BenefitsAppellate ReviewRemand Order
References
6
Case No. DC-13-04564-L
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2015

in Re: Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc. and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a lawsuit alleging sexual assault and related damages, including mental anguish. Her designated psychologist, Dr. William Flynn, conducted a mental examination. Defendants Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc., and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership sought an independent psychological examination of the plaintiff by their expert, Dr. Lisa Clayton. The district court initially denied this motion, and subsequently denied the defendants' joint motion for reconsideration. This mandamus record documents the appellate review of this discovery dispute.

Sexual AssaultMental AnguishPsychological ExaminationDiscovery DisputeForensic PsychologyPremises LiabilityMandamus PetitionCivil ProcedureExpert WitnessTexas Law
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

First Tech. Capital, Inc. v. Airborne, Inc.

Plaintiff First Technology Capital, Inc. initiated an action against Airborne, Inc. d/b/a/ Firstflight for breach of contract. After a series of court decisions, including a vacatur by the Second Circuit and a subsequent default judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the case was closed. The plaintiff then filed a motion to alter the judgment, seeking to remove the language that closed the case to facilitate post-judgment discovery. The court denied this motion, clarifying that reopening the case is unnecessary for a judgment creditor to pursue post-judgment discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2), as courts retain ancillary jurisdiction to enforce judgments.

Post-judgment discoveryFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 69Ancillary jurisdictionJudgment enforcementMotion to alter judgmentCase closureJudgment creditorDistrict Court ProcedureDiscovery scopeWestern District of New York
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Munoz v. Rivera

Julio Rivera sued Mario Munoz and associated entities (Country Club Body & Paint West, Country Club Investment, Inc.) for conversion of his 1994 Chevrolet Camaro after an unauthorized repair and subsequent refusal to return the vehicle. A post-answer default judgment was entered against the defendants due to their non-appearance at trial. The defendants appealed, asserting they did not receive proper notice of the trial setting or their attorney's withdrawal. The appellate court, reviewing for abuse of discretion, analyzed the notice and the defendants' conduct regarding their failure to appear. Ultimately, the court found that notice was adequately sent and received, and the defendants failed to prove their absence was not due to intentional disregard or conscious indifference, thus affirming the trial court's judgment.

Post-Answer Default JudgmentNotice of Trial SettingMotion to Withdraw CounselDue Process ViolationCraddock ElementsAbuse of DiscretionIntentional DisregardConscious IndifferenceVehicle ConversionDamage Award
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Budge v. Post

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses Defendant Troy V. Post’s motion for relief from a January 17, 1980 judgment, which awarded Plaintiff Donald Budge $455,041 for breach of contract. Post sought relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5) or 60(b)(6), alleging newly discovered evidence that Budge had received funds from a Mexican bankruptcy settlement, which violated an assignment agreement within their 1978 contract. The Court found Post entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(5), characterizing Budge’s receipt of funds as a setoff. The judgment was amended, reducing Budge's award by $26,080.73 to reflect the funds received.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)Motion for Relief from JudgmentBreach of ContractContractual AssignmentNewly Discovered EvidenceAccord and SatisfactionSetoffAmended JudgmentFederal Court PracticeCivil Procedure
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eddlemon v. Tecumseh Products Co.

This workers' compensation appeal addressed the calculation of post-judgment interest on a lump sum award. The plaintiff sought interest for 99 days, while the defendant argued for only 32 days, asserting payment was not due until after the appeal period. The court determined that Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-225(h)(1) mandates interest accrual from the date of judgment entry, not after a 30-day appeal window. Consequently, the appellate court modified the trial court's judgment to grant the plaintiff an additional 30 days of post-judgment interest, covering the period from July 7, 1998, to September 8, 1998, and remanded the case for implementation.

Post-judgment Interest CalculationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsStatutory Interpretation 50-6-225Appellate Review StandardTrial Court Judgment ModificationLump Sum PaymentTennessee Workers' Compensation ActInterest Commencement DateAppeals Panel DecisionDenial of Motion for Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2007

Watkins v. Input/Output, Inc.

Plaintiff Gaines Watkins sued Defendant Input/Output, Inc. for age discrimination under the ADEA after his termination at age 68. A jury found in Watkins' favor, awarding $450,000 in back pay and deeming I/O's conduct willful. Watkins moved for final judgment, seeking back pay, liquidated damages, reinstatement or front pay, attorneys' fees, costs, and post-judgment interest. The court granted back pay and an equal amount of liquidated damages totaling $900,000. Reinstatement was denied as unfeasible, and front pay was also denied, as the substantial liquidated damages were deemed sufficient to make the plaintiff whole. The court awarded adjusted attorneys' fees of $336,010.50 and costs of $34,475.07, reducing the requested amounts due to excessive billing and non-taxable items. Post-judgment interest was set at 4.78%.

Age DiscriminationADEAWillful ViolationBack PayLiquidated DamagesFront Pay DeniedReinstatement DeniedAttorneys' FeesCourt CostsPost-Judgment Interest
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 17,925 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