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

Claim of Oppedisano v. Randall Electric, Inc.

Claimant, a journeyman electrician employed by Randall Electric, Inc., sought workers’ compensation benefits due to chemical and fume exposure. Randall Electric, Inc. argued for apportionment of liability, claiming Buckbee-Mears Cortland (BMC) was a special employer. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled against a special employment relationship, designating Randall as the sole employer. Randall appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that there was substantial evidence that BMC did not assume control over the claimant's work, thus failing to establish a special employment relationship.

special employmentworkers' compensation benefitsemployer liabilityapportionment of liabilitycontrol testappellate reviewjourneyman electricianchemical exposureWorkers’ Compensation Board
References
3
Case No. NO. 14-03-00626-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2004

Kevin Lewis v. Randall's Food & Drug, L.P.

Kevin Lewis, an employee of Randalls, sued his employer for personal injury after injuring his back while lifting heavy boxes. Lewis, who was on modified work duty, claimed Randalls breached its duty of care by failing to observe federal lifting standards, requiring heavy lifting while he was on modified duty, and failing to provide an adequate workforce. The trial court granted Randalls' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the court reviewed the summary judgment as a no-evidence motion and affirmed the trial court's decision, finding Lewis failed to present sufficient evidence of breach of duty or proximate causation for his claims. The expert testimony provided was deemed conclusory, and lay testimony was insufficient to establish causation due to the nature and timing of the alleged negligence and injury.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentNegligenceCausationExpert TestimonyNo-Evidence MotionModified Work DutyLifting InjuryWorkplace SafetyTexas Court of Appeals
References
20
Case No. M2000-00453-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2002

James Randall Slaughter v. Duck River Electric Membership Corporation

This case concerns an appeal from a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Duck River Electric Membership Corporation (DREMC) and Osborne Electrical Contractors, Inc. The plaintiffs, James Randall Slaughter and Beverly Slaughter, filed a negligence suit after James Randall Slaughter, an employee of Osborne, suffered severe electrical shock injuries while working for DREMC. DREMC argued it was a statutory employer under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act, thus immune from tort claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that DREMC was indeed a statutory employer due to its right to control Osborne's work and the similarity of work performed. Consequently, workers' compensation benefits were deemed the exclusive remedy, barring the plaintiffs' common law tort action.

Workers' Compensation ActStatutory EmployerSummary Judgment AppealNegligence ClaimEmployer ImmunityRight to ControlIndependent Contractor RelationshipElectrical AccidentPersonal InjuryTennessee Appellate Court
References
23
Case No. 2015-06-1067 / 47262-2015
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2015

Harper, Randall v. USF Holland Trucking Co.

The employee, Randall Harper, appealed the denial of pre-trial benefits for cellulitis, which he attributed to an insect bite sustained during his employment as a truck driver. The trial court found insufficient evidence to establish the injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the record did not preponderate against the initial finding. The Board also determined that any potential error regarding unconsidered medical records from the Med 1 clinic was harmless and declined to construct arguments for the pro se employee.

Workers' CompensationInterlocutory AppealCellulitisInsect BiteEmployment InjuryMedical Treatment DenialSufficiency of EvidencePro Se LitigantAppellate ReviewBurden of Proof
References
4
Case No. 2021-02-0225
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2023

Randall, Wilma v. Food Lion and Delhaize America, Inc.

The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a trial court's denial of medical benefits to employee Wilma Randall, who sought treatment for pulmonary conditions allegedly caused by workplace chemical exposure at Food Lion, operated by Delhaize America, Inc. The employer denied causation, asserting no evidence of the conditions arising primarily from or being aggravated by workplace exposures. The trial court initially found insufficient evidence for the employee to likely prevail on medical causation, a decision upheld on appeal. The Appeals Board gave greater weight to the employer's expert toxicologist, Dr. Christopher Holstege, who reviewed more complete medical records and attributed symptoms to an infectious process, over the employee's treating pulmonologist, Dr. April Lambert, who causally connected the conditions to workplace chemicals but had reviewed fewer records. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseasePulmonary ConditionsChemical ExposureMedical CausationExpert Witness TestimonyAppellate ReviewTennessee LawExpedited HearingMedical Benefits
References
6
Case No. E2003-01576-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2004

James A. Bledsoe and Nannie Bledsoe v. Randall Buttry and Grange Insurance Company

James A. Bledsoe and Nannie Bledsoe (Appellants) sued Randall Buttry and Grange Insurance Company (Appellees) for damages stemming from a motor vehicle crash. The Bledsoes challenged the jury's verdict as insufficient and alleged errors in the trial court's evidentiary rulings. The incident occurred when Buttry, experiencing a seizure, sideswiped multiple vehicles, including the Bledsoes' truck. James Bledsoe sought compensation for personal injuries and property damage, while Nannie Bledsoe claimed loss of consortium. The jury awarded James Bledsoe $3,000 for truck damages and $3,000 for personal injuries but denied Nannie Bledsoe's claim. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that material evidence supported the jury's verdict and finding no errors in the trial court's decisions regarding evidence or trial conduct.

Motor Vehicle AccidentPersonal InjuryProperty DamageLoss of ConsortiumJury Verdict ReviewEvidentiary RulingsDirected VerdictMedical Expert TestimonyPermanent Impairment AssessmentDamages Award
References
10
Case No. E2003-01685-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2004

Randall C. Hagy v. Commisssioner, Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development and Tennessee Distribution, Inc.

Randall C. Hagy was discharged from his employment with Tennessee Distribution, Inc. after refusing to handle materials he deemed offensive to his religious beliefs. The Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development denied Hagy unemployment benefits, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Chancery Court for Sullivan County. Hagy appealed to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, raising issues concerning the evidentiary support for the decision, alleged procedural violations of his right to a jury trial, and violations of his constitutional rights, including freedom of religion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding substantial and material evidence supported the Board's conclusion that Hagy was discharged for misconduct due to his refusal to perform job duties. The court also determined that the unemployment compensation law was a neutral and generally applicable law, thus not violating Hagy's free exercise of religion, and declined to address the jury trial issue as it was not raised in the lower court.

Unemployment CompensationReligious DiscriminationEmployee MisconductRefusal to WorkFreedom of ReligionAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative LawChancery CourtCourt of Appeals
References
9
Case No. 15-24-00097-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2024

Randall Law v. Texas Department of Insurance – Division of Workers' Compensation Subsequent Injury Fund, Jeff Nelson, Kara MacE, and Blaise Gerstenlauer

Appellant Randal Law, a catastrophically injured worker receiving lifetime income benefits from the Subsequent Injury Fund, appeals a decision from the 353rd Civil District Court of Travis County, Texas. The District Court granted the defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction, dismissing Law's claims without prejudice. Law argues that manager Blaise Gerstenlauer acted with "Severe Ultra Vires conduct" by unilaterally interrupting his lifetime income benefits, which are protected by the Texas Labor Code from legal process and are paid until the employee's death. Law contends that this ultra vires act bypasses sovereign immunity, allowing his case to proceed in the Texas Judicial Review System. The brief requests the Fifteenth Court of Appeals to reverse the lower court's order and grant jurisdiction to Law.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsSubsequent Injury FundUltra Vires ActSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionAppellate CourtInjunctive ReliefCatastrophic InjuryTexas Labor Code
References
2
Case No. 15-24-00097-CV, D-1-GN-24-003462
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2025

Randal Law v. Texas Department of Insurance – Division of Workers' Compensation Subsequent Injury Fund, Jeff Nelson, Kara MacE, and Blaise Gerstenlauer

The appellant, Randal Law, challenges the Texas Department of Insurance – Division of Workers’ Compensation – Subsequent Injury Fund (TDI-DWC-SIF) regarding the implementation of a new rule, 28 TAC §131.5. Mr. Law, a recipient of Lifetime Income Benefits (LIBs) for a catastrophic injury, argues that the TDI-DWC-SIF acted ultra vires by imposing a monthly verification requirement for LIBs, which he claims directly conflicts with Texas Labor Code §§ 408.161(a) and 408.201. He asserts that these statutes mandate LIBs payments until death and exempt benefits from other actions or claims, leaving no discretion for administrative interference. The appellant contends that the new rule unlawfully transforms legislative intent, imposes an undue burden on injured workers, and has caused him significant financial hardship. He seeks to reverse the district court's decision on jurisdiction and for the appellate court to rule in favor of the plaintiff's jurisdiction and address the questions of law.

Lifetime Income Benefits (LIBs)Ultra ViresSovereign Immunity ExceptionAdministrative Rule ChallengeStatutory ConstructionTexas Labor LawAppellate JurisdictionState Agency DiscretionInjured Employee RightsDue Process Violation
References
5
Case No. 03-15-00341-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2015

Antioch St. Johns Cemetery Company D/B/A American Memorial Park, Grand Prairie, Texas Gerald Weatherall And Beverly Randall-Weatherall v. Texas Department of Banking Commissioner

This appellate brief argues that the appellants, Antioch St. Johns Cemetery Company, Gerald Weatherall, and Beverly Randall-Weatherall, failed to preserve their arguments for judicial review by submitting an insufficiently definite motion for rehearing. The brief contends that the Commissioner's Final Order, which imposed a $56,000 administrative penalty against the cemetery company and Gerald Weatherall for numerous violations of the Texas Health and Safety Code Chapters 711 and 712, was supported by substantial evidence. It highlights a pattern of willful disregard for the law by Gerald Weatherall in operating the perpetual care cemetery, citing poor record-keeping, inadequate maintenance, and operation without a corporate charter or certificate of authority. The appellee, the Texas Department of Banking Commissioner, requests the Third Court of Appeals to affirm the Travis County District Court's judgment upholding the administrative order.

Administrative LawAppellate ReviewCemetery RegulationPerpetual CareTexas Department of BankingRegulatory ViolationsCorporate ShieldingIndividual LiabilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewMotion for Rehearing
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 85 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