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. 2016-07-0772
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2017

Jacks, Bonnie v. Camden Healthcare/Northpoint Senior Services, LLC

Bonnie Jacks, an employee of Northpoint, sustained a left shoulder injury in 2015. She requested an expedited hearing for additional medical benefits and approval of physician referrals to orthopedic and pain management specialists, as well as payment of outstanding medical bills. The employer, Northpoint, failed to provide a panel of physicians as required by law, instead offering Dr. Berry and later accepting a referral to Dr. Chandler. The Court found Ms. Jacks entitled to a panel of physicians for an orthopedic evaluation and ordered Northpoint to approve Dr. Berry’s referral to Tennessee Orthopedic Alliance. Additionally, Northpoint was ordered to pay Dr. Berry's outstanding bills totaling $340.00. The Court denied Ms. Jacks' counsel's request for attorney's fees but referred the case to the Penalty Unit for consideration of a penalty against Northpoint for failing to timely provide a panel of physicians.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingPhysician PanelOrthopedic ReferralPain ManagementAttorney's Fees DeniedPenalty Unit ReferralRotator Cuff TearShoulder Injury
References
3
Case No. 2016-03-0885
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2017

Adams, Roy v. Beverly Park Place Health and Rehabilitation

Roy Adams, a Maintenance Assistant, sustained chemical burns to his hands while cleaning machinery with hazardous chemicals. He received treatment from Dr. King at Nova Medical Center, who diagnosed irritant dermatitis and cleared him for full duty. Despite Dr. King's assessment, Mr. Adams continued to experience pain, cramping, and difficulty grasping objects, prompting him to request a specialist referral and temporary disability benefits. Beverly Park Place Health and Rehabilitation argued that Dr. King had consulted with specialists and found no need for further referrals, and his medical opinion is presumed correct. The Court ultimately denied Mr. Adams' requests for both a specialist referral and temporary disability benefits, citing insufficient medical evidence to rebut Dr. King's opinion.

Chemical BurnIrritant DermatitisTemporary Disability BenefitsSpecialist ReferralMedical OpinionPhysician's PresumptionWorkers' CompensationExpedited HearingKnox CountyHand Injury
References
5
Case No. 2019-01-0368
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2020

Ibarra, Grecia v. Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc.

Employee Grecia Ibarra reported back pain after lifting totes at work and sought medical benefits. After initial treatment and a referral to an orthopedic specialist by Dr. Natasha Ballard, Amazon declined the referral, asserting Ibarra failed to provide proper notice or identify a specific injury incident. The trial court ordered Amazon to provide a panel of orthopedic specialists. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, finding Ibarra provided sufficient notice and evidence of a work-related condition resulting from a "set of incidents," and that the physician's referral was presumed medically necessary. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryMedical BenefitsOrthopedic ReferralNotice of InjuryCumulative TraumaExpedited HearingMedical CausationEmployer ObligationsEmployee Rights
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Medical Evaluation Specialists, Inc.

Justice Wilson dissents from the majority's decision on a motion for rehearing, arguing that the majority improperly considered non-evidence and engaged in speculation. The dissent contends that Lennie Davis's controverting affidavit by Dr. Bergeron, which stated a 17% impairment rating compared to the defendants' 0%, was conclusory and insufficient to establish bad faith by Medical Evaluation Specialists, Inc., Dr. DeFrancesco, and Dr. Dozier. Justice Wilson believes that the affidavit failed to meet the objective 'no reasonable doctor' standard for controverting good faith, and therefore, the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants should have been affirmed based on official immunity.

Summary JudgmentOfficial ImmunityGood FaithImpairment RatingMedical AffidavitConclusory StatementsTexas Workers' Compensation ActAppellate ReviewDissenting OpinionPermanent Disability
References
7
Case No. 01-23-00704-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2025

Industrial Specialists, LLC v. Blanchard Refining Company LLC and Marathon Petroleum Company LP

This case addresses whether an indemnitee can recover from its indemnitor the portion of a settlement attributable to other defendants under a comparative indemnity scheme, even if the indemnitee was also found negligent. Industrial Specialists, LLC (Appellant) was sued by Blanchard Refining Company LLC and Marathon Petroleum Company LP (Appellees) for breach of a contractual indemnity agreement. A fire at a refinery injured employees, leading to a $104 million settlement by Marathon and other contractors, where Marathon paid $86 million. The jury found Marathon 38% negligent and Industrial 17% negligent, among others. The core issue is the enforceability of the indemnity provision under the express negligence doctrine, specifically concerning comparative indemnity. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the indemnity provision failed to expressly provide for comparative indemnity, thus rendering it unenforceable as a matter of law.

Contractual IndemnityExpress Negligence DoctrineComparative IndemnityOil and Gas IndustryRefinery FirePersonal Injury ClaimsSettlement AgreementsBreach of ContractTexas LawAppellate Court Decision
References
17
Case No. 2021-05-0644
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2023

Cook, Lisa v. Newton Nissan of Gallatin_Newton Ford, LLC

This interlocutory appeal concerns a trial court's order for an employer to provide a revised panel of pain management specialists to an employee who suffered a compensable left wrist injury. The employee had been referred to pain management after conservative treatments failed. The employer's initial panel included a physician who had previously treated and released the employee, stating he had nothing further to offer, and two specialists located 170 miles away. The trial court found the panel defective and the referral medically necessary. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the previously-treating physician was not "willing and able to treat" the employee further under the circumstances. The Board also upheld the trial court's decision not to compel the employer to honor a direct referral to a specific clinic.

pain management referraldefective medical panelmedical necessity presumptioncomplex regional pain syndrome (CRPS)deQuervain’s tenosynovitistreating physician referralemployer's panel obligationutilization reviewinterlocutory appealappellate review standard
References
9
Case No. 2022-08-1069
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2025

Morris, Damon Curry v. Select Services

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee claimed he suffered arm and shoulder injuries due to an alleged workplace assault committed by his supervisor. The employer denied the assault occurred and denied the employee sustained any work-related injuries. Pursuant to a prior expedited hearing order, the employer provided a panel of physicians and authorized limited medical treatment. Thereafter, an MRI revealed a small partial tear in the left rotator cuff. The employer declined to approve additional treatment recommended by the authorized physician and declined to approve the authorized physician’s referral to a specialist. As a result, the employee requested another expedited hearing, after which the trial court ordered the employer to authorize the referral to a specialist for evaluation and treatment of the left shoulder despite acknowledging the lack of any expert medical evidence indicating that the employee’s left shoulder condition was primarily caused by the alleged workplace assault. Upon careful consideration of the record, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case.

Workplace InjuryShoulder InjuryRotator CuffMedical CausationExpedited HearingEmployer LiabilityEmployee Burden of ProofInterlocutory AppealRemandSubsequent Injury Fund
References
8
Case No. 2020-06-0867
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2020

Randolph, Kevin v. R & M ELECTRIC, INC.

Kevin Randolph, an employee, suffered a severe injury when he fell approximately fifteen feet while working. He requested treatment with Dr. Sravani Mehta, a specialist in traumatic brain injuries, after a referral from Dr. James Ho, an optometrist. The employer, R & M Electric, Inc., and its insurer, The Hartford, denied the request, stating that the authorized treating physician, Dr. Anna-Louise Mollete, never made the referral. The Court affirmed that Tennessee law allows referrals only from physicians or chiropractors, not optometrists, and found that the employer did not waive its right to object by honoring prior non-physician referrals. Consequently, the Court denied Mr. Randolph's request for treatment with Dr. Mehta.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsReferral PolicyOptometristPhysicianEmployer ResponsibilityWaiver DoctrineStatutory InterpretationTraumatic Brain InjuryTennessee Law
References
7
Case No. 2018-01-0349
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2019

Rhodes, Jason v. Amazon.com, LLC

Jason Rhodes, an employee of Amazon, sustained a foot injury and sought medical care and temporary partial disability benefits. The dispute arose when Mr. Rhodes declined to see an orthopedist referred by Amazon's authorized treating physician, Dr. Natasha Ballard, citing distance, and instead saw Dr. Jesse Doty. Mr. Rhodes argued that Amazon's practice of directing referrals to a single orthopedist effectively usurped his right to choose a physician under Tennessee law. The Court found Amazon's method of compelling referrals to a specific specialist by removing the treating physician's neutrality was contrary to the spirit of the direct-referral statute. Consequently, the Court ordered Amazon to provide a new panel of orthopedists and to pay Mr. Rhodes temporary partial disability benefits for the period he was out of work.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Partial DisabilityPhysician ChoiceEmployer Referral PolicyOrthopedist PanelCommunity of ResidenceMedical Treatment DisputeFoot Injury
References
4
Case No. 2015-03-0285
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2016

Long, Joann v. Southeast Eye Specialists

This Expedited Hearing Order addresses Joann Long's request for medical and temporary disability benefits after a workplace fall. Ms. Long, employed by SouthEast Eye Specialists, sustained a severe hamstring injury. She initially received treatment from Dr. Hovis, the authorized treating physician, who did not recommend surgery. Ms. Long sought a second opinion and, dissatisfied with Dr. Hovis's care, pursued unauthorized surgery with Dr. Damon Petty. SouthEast Eye Specialists subsequently suspended her benefits, citing her non-compliance with the authorized physician. The Court found insufficient evidence to determine if Dr. Hovis's treatment was inappropriate, and thus, Ms. Long failed to justify seeking unauthorized medical care. Consequently, the Court denied her requests for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred with Dr. Petty and for temporary total disability benefits. Dr. Hovis is to remain the authorized treating physician, or SES must provide a new panel.

Workers' Compensation LawExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Total DisabilityUnauthorized Medical TreatmentAuthorized Treating PhysicianPanel of PhysiciansBurden of ProofConflicting Medical OpinionsHamstring Injury
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 414 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