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. 2021-08-0034
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

Williams, Linda (by Lawrence Williams, surviving spouse) v. Methodist Lebonheur Healthcare

This death claim involves Lawrence Williams, surviving spouse of Linda Williams, who contracted COVID-19 while employed by Methodist Lebonheur Healthcare. The primary dispute centered on the calculation of the maximum total death benefit. Methodist argued for a benefit capped at $184,918.50, based on Ms. Williams's weekly compensation rate. However, the Court, drawing on the precedent of Reynolds v. Free Serv. Tire Co. and interpretations of Tennessee Code Annotated, determined that the correct maximum total benefit was $447,300.00, calculated as 450 weeks times the state's average weekly wage. The Court found the reasoning in Reynolds persuasive, despite Methodist's objections regarding its citation status. Consequently, the Court ordered Methodist to pay Mr. Williams the higher death benefits.

Death ClaimWorkers' CompensationCOVID-19Surviving SpouseMaximum Total BenefitAverage Weekly WageStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawBenefit CalculationCase Precedent
References
5
Case No. 11-15-00123-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2016

Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Mary Ann Tarango, Surviving Spouse of Manual Tarango

This case involves an appeal from the judicial review of an administrative decision by a Texas Division of Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel. The panel had previously denied workers’ compensation death benefits to Mary Ann Tarango, surviving spouse of Manuel Tarango, due to alleged abandonment. The trial court subsequently reversed this administrative decision, ruling in favor of Mary Ann and entitling her to benefits. However, the Eleventh Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred by improperly placing the burden of proof on Liberty Insurance Corporation to demonstrate abandonment, rather than on Mary Ann Tarango as the party seeking judicial review. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewBurden of ProofAbandonmentDeath BenefitsSpousal EligibilityTexas Labor CodeAppeals PanelTrial Court ErrorAdministrative Decision
References
4
Case No. E2008-01596-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2009

Evelyn Nye, Individually and as Surviving Spouse and Next-of-Kin of Hugh Todd Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc.

Evelyn Nye, individually and as surviving spouse of Hugh Todd Nye, brought a product liability action against Bayer Cropscience, Inc., and later solely against National Service Industries, Inc., d/b/a North Brothers, alleging her husband's mesothelioma was caused by asbestos exposure from products sold by North Brothers to his employer, DuPont. The jury initially found in favor of North Brothers, a verdict approved by the Trial Court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the trial court's judgment, finding errors in jury instructions, specifically regarding the application of the 'learned intermediary' or 'sophisticated buyer' doctrine to DuPont's knowledge of asbestos hazards, which improperly functioned as a directed verdict. The court also clarified the distinction between cause in fact and proximate cause concerning employer immunity under workers' compensation law. The case was remanded for a new trial with directives for proper jury instructions and verdict forms.

Asbestos ExposureMesotheliomaProduct LiabilityStrict LiabilityFailure to WarnJury InstructionsLearned Intermediary DoctrineSophisticated User DoctrineComparative FaultWorkers' Compensation Immunity
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ponder v. Manchester Housing Authority

This workers' compensation death case addresses the commutation of death benefits awarded to the surviving spouse and dependents of Delton Thomas Ponder, Sr., who died from a work-related heart attack. The trial court initially denied a lump sum payment, believing a 'special need' was required, despite acknowledging the surviving spouse's financial management abilities. The Supreme Court reversed, clarifying that Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6-229(a) no longer requires a 'special need' but rather focuses on the employee's best interest and the capability of wisely managing the commuted award. The Court found that the surviving spouse demonstrated exceptional financial acumen and that a lump sum award would be in the best interest of the family, as periodic payments were not essential for their support. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial court to commute the benefits to a lump sum for both the surviving spouse and the children, with the children's shares to be invested by the Clerk and Master.

Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsLump Sum CommutationDependent BenefitsSurviving Spouse RightsFinancial Management AbilityBest Interest TestStatutory Amendment InterpretationTennessee Workers' Compensation LawAppellate ReversalRemand for Commutation
References
3
Case No. 2020-05-0875
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2021

Summers, Christine v. RTR Transportation Services

The employee’s surviving spouse challenged the trial court’s decision denying his request for a lump sum payment of death benefits and attorneys’ fees. The surviving spouse additionally challenged the trial court’s denial of his counsels’ request for attorneys’ fees on the burial expenses paid by the employer. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court’s decision denying the surviving spouse’s request to commute the death benefits to a single lump sum and denying the award of attorney’s fees in a single lump sum. The Board also affirmed the trial court’s denial of an award of attorneys’ fees on the burial expenses paid by the employer, concluding they were not an issue at trial. Finally, the Board certified the trial court’s order as final.

Death BenefitsLump Sum PaymentAttorneys' FeesBurial ExpensesWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSurviving SpouseStatutory InterpretationAbuse of DiscretionTrial Court DecisionCommutation of Benefits
References
10
Case No. 2020-06-1013
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2021

Turner, David v. Pee Dee Country Enterprises, Inc.

This case concerns a dispute over attorney's fees in a death benefits claim. Jamie Henderson, the surviving spouse, appealed the trial court's decision to reduce her attorney's fees from 20% to 7.5% of the difference between recovery under Tennessee and Mississippi law. This is the second appeal on this issue. The Appeals Board concluded that workers' compensation judges, included within the definition of 'the department,' must deem attorney's fees reasonable if they do not exceed 20% of the award to the injured worker, as stipulated by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-226(a)(1). Consequently, the Board reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for approval of the attorney's fee originally agreed upon by the surviving spouse and her attorney.

Attorney's FeesWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationContingency FeesJudicial DiscretionDeath BenefitsTennessee Workers' Compensation LawLump Sum PaymentCourt of Workers' Compensation Claims
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zechmann v. Canisteo Volunteer Fire Department

This case addresses whether a claim by a surviving spouse for death benefits, traceable to a 1951 injury, is time-barred under New York's Workers' Compensation Law. The Special Fund for Reopened Cases argued for the application of

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesDeath Benefits ClaimTime-Barred ClaimStatute of LimitationsContinuing JurisdictionClosed Cases ReopeningDisability ClaimCausal RelationVolunteer Firemen's Benefit Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 1997

Reed v. State

Claimant Rollo J. Reed, an ironworker, was injured at a construction site in Binghamton, New York, when scaffolding gave way, causing him to fall. He and his spouse commenced a claim against the State, alleging liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Court of Claims granted their motion for partial summary judgment on liability. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that the claimant's injuries resulted from an elevation-related hazard against which the State failed to provide proper protection. The court also rejected the State's defense under the recalcitrant worker doctrine, finding no evidence that the claimant refused to use available safety devices or alternative safer access.

Labor Law Section 240 (1)Scaffolding AccidentConstruction InjuryAbsolute LiabilityElevation HazardSummary Judgment MotionRecalcitrant Worker DoctrineIronworkerBridge RehabilitationAppellate Affirmation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harrington v. Fernet

Mark Harrington, an employee of M&A Construction, sustained an injury in September 2006 while working on a residential development for Charlew Construction Company, Inc., discharging a nail into his right leg with a pneumatic framing gun. Harrington and his spouse subsequently sued Charlew, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241 (6), and common-law negligence. Charlew's motion for summary judgment was partially granted, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim but denied concerning Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, with the indemnification claim deemed premature. The core dispute revolves around whether a hazardous condition, specifically an unbackfilled foundation creating a muddy slope, was present at the worksite, which Harrington claimed caused his accident. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims due to a factual dispute regarding the hazardous condition, a decision affirmed by the appellate court.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryNail Gun InjuryLabor Law ViolationsSafe Place to WorkHazardous ConditionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCommon-Law NegligenceContribution
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Chefs Diet Delivery, LLC

The case concerns a putative class action brought by delivery drivers against several defendants, including Chefs Diet Delivery, LLC, for alleged violations of Labor Law article 6 regarding wage and benefit payments. The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint, categorizing the drivers as independent contractors. The Appellate Court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship due to the defendants' control over their work. The court also determined that the documentary evidence provided by the defendants was insufficient to conclusively prove the drivers were independent contractors, thus denying the motions to dismiss.

Class ActionLabor LawWage and HourEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewDegree of ControlDelivery DriversWorkers' Rights
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 337 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