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

Brady v. Reed

The case involves petitioner Reed, who sought workers' compensation after sustaining an eye injury while working as a carpenter for defendants Brady and wife. Reed claimed the defendants were partners in a building business employing five or more people, making them subject to the Tennessee Workmen's Compensation Act. The defendants disputed their partnership status and the number of employees. The Trial Judge ruled in favor of Reed. On appeal, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support that Brady and wife were engaged in a building business and employed enough individuals to fall under the Act. The Court also denied Reed's request for a lien on the property, noting the claim was filed more than ninety days post-injury.

Workers' Compensation LawEmployer DefinitionEmployee ClassificationPartnership LiabilityStatutory CoverageLien EnforcementAppellate ProcedureEvidence SufficiencyConstruction IndustryTennessee Supreme Court
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05443
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2020

Alonso v. Reed Elsevier, PLC

Plaintiff William Alonso was injured when a display fell on him at a vision trade show while working as a greeter. The display, designed and manufactured by Freeman according to Reed's specifications, fell as Javits Center electricians were mounting a television monitor. The Supreme Court denied Freeman's motion for summary judgment, denied Reed's motion to amend its answer with a Workers' Compensation defense, and granted Reed's motion for contractual indemnification against Freeman. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint against all defendants except Freeman and Reed, citing issues of fact regarding Freeman's design and Reed's control. The court affirmed the denial of Reed's Workers' Compensation defense and the grant of contractual indemnification.

Summary judgmentNegligenceRes ipsa loquiturWorkers' Compensation defenseContractual indemnificationAppellate reviewDisplay fallTrade show injurySpecial employee doctrineMotion to amend answer
References
10
Case No. 02-13-00405-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2014

Uneeda Reed v. Cook Children's Medical Center, Inc.

Uneeda Reed appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Cook Children’s Medical Center, Inc. (CCMC) on her claims of racial discrimination and retaliation. Reed, an African-American lead tech, alleged discrimination after being denied T-DOC training and a special assignment, and claimed retaliation following her demotion and pay cut after raising concerns about unfair treatment and perceived racial issues. CCMC contended Reed's demotion was due to disruptive behavior, supported by coworker complaints, and the trial court excluded some of Reed's supporting evidence as hearsay. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Reed failed to demonstrate an "ultimate employment decision" for her discrimination claim and could not prove CCMC's non-discriminatory reason for demotion was a pretext for retaliation.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionPretextDisparate TreatmentHearsayTexas Labor CodeTitle VIIBurden-Shifting Analysis
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed v. Great Meadow Correctional Facility

The decision addresses a habeas corpus petition filed by Robert Reed against Great Meadow Correctional Facility. Reed had been convicted of two counts of first-degree rape in Niagara County, a conviction which was largely affirmed on appeal, though his sentences were modified to run concurrently. He raised four primary grounds for federal habeas relief: insufficiency of evidence, incredibility of witnesses, prosecutorial misconduct, and improper consolidation of indictments during his trial. The court, however, rejected each of Reed's arguments, finding that the evidence presented at trial was constitutionally sufficient, witness credibility was properly within the jury's discretion, no prosecutorial misconduct as defined by precedent occurred, and the joinder of indictments was appropriate. Citing relevant case law, the court determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the joinder and that the jury was properly instructed. As a result, the petition for habeas corpus was dismissed, and a certificate of appealability was denied, as the court found no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Habeas CorpusRape ConvictionInsufficiency of EvidenceWitness CredibilityProsecutorial MisconductJoinder of IndictmentsDue ProcessActual Prejudice StandardFederal Habeas ReliefState Court Conviction
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc.

Patricia K. Reed appealed the dismissal of her claims for retaliatory discharge and breach of employment contract against Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the retaliatory discharge claim, ruling that Reed failed to establish a causal link between her workers' compensation claim and her termination, despite the one-year statute of limitations not having run. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the breach of employment contract claim, concluding that the "FamPact" document constituted a binding employment agreement. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Reed's statutory claim under the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law, finding no private right of action for negligent case management. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding the breach of contract claim.

Retaliatory DischargeBreach of Employment ContractWorkers' Compensation ClaimEmployment LawAt-Will EmploymentEmployee HandbookFamPactStatute of LimitationsCausation in EmploymentRelease of Liability
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown Shoe Company v. Reed

Employee Reed suffered an ulnar nerve injury in his left arm due to the repetitive nature of his work 'rough trimming' shoes for Brown Shoe Company. The injury caused numbness, atrophy, and loss of grip, leading him to quit his job on April 27, 1959, on medical advice. The trial judge found in favor of Reed, awarding compensation, which the Shoe Company appealed, arguing the injury was not compensable and notice/suit were untimely. The appellate court affirmed the trial judge's finding that the gradual injury constituted an 'accident' under Workers' Compensation law and that notice was timely given when the seriousness became apparent. The case was remanded for a correction in the computation of the award under the statute in force at the time of injury and to account for a potential operation.

Ulnar Nerve InjuryRepetitive Strain InjuryGradual InjuryOccupational Disease ClassificationNotice RequirementStatute of Limitations DefenseMaterial Evidence RuleMedical TestimonyAtrophy of MusclesNerve Entrapment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed Tool Co. v. Copelin

Mrs. Judy Copelin sued Reed Tool Company for loss of consortium following her husband's severe brain injury sustained on the job, alleging the employer intentionally caused the harm by maintaining an unsafe workplace. The central legal issue was whether an employer's intentional creation of a hazardous work environment constitutes an intentional injury, thereby allowing an employee to bypass the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for Reed Tool, a decision later reversed by the court of appeals. This Supreme Court ultimately reversed the court of appeals, reinstating the trial court's summary judgment. The Court ruled that merely failing to provide a safe workplace does not qualify as an intentional injury unless the employer specifically believed the injury was substantially certain to occur, a standard the plaintiff's evidence of gross negligence failed to meet.

Employer LiabilityIntentional InjuryUnsafe WorkplaceLoss of Consortium ClaimSummary Judgment ReviewWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityGross Negligence DistinctionSubstantially Certain InjuryWorkers' Compensation Act (Texas)Tort Law
References
36
Case No. NO. 02-11-00285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2012

Gregory Earl Reed D/B/A Hit City Records & Tapes v. County of Tarrant, Tarrant County Hospital District, Tarrant County Community College District, City of Forest Hill, and Fort Worth Independent School District

Appellant Gregory Earl Reed d/b/a Hit City Records & Tapes appealed the trial court’s denial of his equitable bill of review. The bill challenged a default judgment for delinquent property taxes, tax lien foreclosure, and a tax-foreclosure sale obtained by Appellees. Reed contended that he and Ronald Reed, the registered agent, were not properly served, and even if served, it was ineffective as Ronald was no longer a partner. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that service upon Ronald was effective because the filed deed showed him as a partner, and there was no indication to Appellees that their notice had failed, thus no due process violation.

Equitable Bill of ReviewDefault JudgmentDelinquent Property TaxesTax Lien ForeclosureTax Foreclosure SaleService of ProcessDue ProcessPartnership LawAd Valorem TaxesSufficiency of Evidence
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lowe v. Yochem (In Re Reed)

John Patrick Lowe, the Chapter 7 Trustee, initiated an adversary proceeding to avoid postpetition transfers of estate property and recover funds from several defendants, including Phillip A. Yochem, Gray Realty, Brown Beasley & Associates, Thomas B. Ewbank, Jerry Lee Reed, and Thomas and Dorothy McDade. The central dispute revolved around whether the Bartley Note and its proceeds, which originated from the sale of the Debtor's exempt homestead, constituted property of the bankruptcy estate. The Debtor, Jerry Lee Reed, had initially filed for Chapter 11, properly claimed his ranch as an exempt homestead, and subsequently sold it, generating the Bartley Note, which was later disbursed to various creditors after the case converted to Chapter 7. The court concluded that property, once validly claimed as exempt, remains exempt, and its postpetition transformation into another form does not cause it to revert to the estate under sections 541(a)(6) or 541(a)(7). Therefore, as the Bartley Note and its proceeds were never considered 'property of the estate,' the Trustee's avoidance action under section 549(a) could not succeed, leading to the granting of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

BankruptcyHomestead ExemptionProperty of the EstatePostpetition TransfersAvoidance ActionSummary JudgmentChapter 7Chapter 11Proceeds of Exempt PropertyDebtor-in-Possession
References
16
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
Showing 1-10 of 72 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