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

Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Curry

Circuit City Stores, Inc. and Diana Beaufils filed an original petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s denial of their request to compel Ronald Giacoma to arbitration. Giacoma, a former employee, initially agreed to an arbitration program but later sued for retaliatory discharge after being fired. The court examined whether an enforceable arbitration agreement existed, considering Giacoma's arguments of no agreement, fraudulent inducement, and unconscionability. The appellate court found a valid agreement under the Federal Arbitration Act and determined the trial court abused its discretion by not enforcing it. Consequently, the writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, ordering arbitration and a stay of the civil action.

Arbitration AgreementMandamusRetaliatory DischargeEmployment ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActContract EnforcementAbuse of DiscretionOpt-out ProvisionFraudulent Inducement DefenseUnconscionability Defense
References
16
Case No. ADJ3125089 (POM 0296138)
Regular
Apr 29, 2014

ROBERT FERNANDEZ vs. CIRCUIT CITY/CSIF

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the WCJ's decision in the case of Robert Fernandez v. Circuit City/CSIF. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the matter for further proceedings and a new decision. This action was taken, in part, because the lien claimant's petition was not brought to the Board's attention within the statutory 60-day period, but the period was tolled due to fundamental due process principles. The decision is not a final determination on the merits, and parties retain their rights.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeGrant ReconsiderationRescind DecisionFurther ProceedingsStatutory Time PeriodDue ProcessTolledActual Notice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co.

Plaintiff David E. Ridings sustained personal injuries from a fall during his employment by CBI-Nacon, Inc., and filed a negligence and strict liability action against multiple defendants. Following the *McIntyre v. Balentine* decision, defendants sought to amend their answers to assert the employer's negligence as an affirmative defense. The trial court initially denied this as to the employer, but the Court of Appeals reversed. This interlocutory appeal addresses whether defendants can attribute fault to an employer immune under workers' compensation laws. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that fault can only be attributed to persons against whom the plaintiff has a cause of action in tort, thus precluding the attribution of fault to an immune employer.

Comparative FaultWorkers' Compensation ImmunityAffirmative DefenseEmployer NegligenceThird-Party LiabilityTort LawPersonal InjuryInterlocutory AppealStatutory InterpretationContribution Among Tortfeasors
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mehar v. Skyline Credit Ride, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the employment relationship of a limousine driver injured in 1992. The Board determined that the claimant was a general employee of Muhammad Tahir and a special employee of Skyline Credit Ride, Inc., apportioning workers' compensation liability 90% to Skyline and 10% to Tahir. Skyline appealed this ruling. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support both the special employment relationship with Skyline, based on its extensive control over the driver's work, and the general employment relationship with Tahir, who owned radio rights and provided the vehicle and insurance. The court upheld the apportionment of liability.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipSpecial EmploymentGeneral EmploymentLimousine DriverRadio-Dispatched Car ServiceApportionment of LiabilitySubstantial EvidenceControl TestEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Banful v. Skyline Credit Ride, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board determined that an employer-employee relationship existed between a claimant, a limousine driver, and Skyline Credit Ride, Inc., making the claimant eligible for benefits for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Skyline and its compensation carrier appealed this decision, arguing the claimant should be classified as an independent contractor. The appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding there was substantial evidence of Skyline's control over its drivers, consistent with prior rulings like *Matter of Weingarten v XYZ Two Way Radio Serv.* Additionally, the court found the Board's explanation rational for distinguishing its current decision from an earlier, inconsistent one involving a different Skyline driver, as the Board explicitly stated its intention to adhere to the *Weingarten* precedent. The decision and amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board were affirmed without costs.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorLimousine DriverDispatch ServiceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionPrecedentControl Test
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2011

In re Giannis F.

The Family Court in Bronx County granted an application for a child to testify at a fact-finding hearing via two-way closed-circuit television, subject to cross-examination. This decision was affirmed by the Appellate Division. The court properly balanced the respondent mother’s due process rights with the emotional well-being of the child in permitting the child to testify outside their presence. An affidavit from a social worker, detailing multiple interviews with the child and consultations with another social worker, sufficiently established the potential trauma. An evidentiary hearing was deemed unnecessary as the mother failed to present evidence challenging the social worker's assessment or expertise.

Child TestimonyClosed-Circuit TelevisionSexual AbuseDue ProcessEmotional Well-beingSocial Worker AssessmentFamily CourtAppellate DivisionEvidentiary HearingTrauma
References
3
Case No. Appeal No. 01-A-01-9609-CV-00389, Davidson Circuit No. 87C-239
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 1997

Moon v. St. Thomas Hospital

This lawsuit stemmed from the death of Ray Elmer Garrett at St. Thomas Hospital, who died after biting through an endotracheal tube following surgery. The Davidson County Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the hospital, concluding the events were not reasonably foreseeable. Plaintiff Freda Moon appealed, arguing that summary judgment was improper. The Court of Appeals reviewed the standards for summary judgment in medical malpractice cases, focusing on the foreseeability of the injury and the recognized standard of professional practice in Nashville. The court found the plaintiff's expert opinions insufficient due to their failure to establish the local standard of care and the inaccuracy of the factual basis, ultimately affirming the trial court's decision.

Medical MalpracticeHospital NegligenceEndotracheal TubeForeseeabilityStandard of CareSummary JudgmentExpert TestimonyPost-Operative ComplicationsPatient AgitationWrongful Death
References
28
Case No. Shelby Circuit No. 47678 T.D.; C.A. No. 02A01-9602-CV-00038
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1996

Darryl Jones, as surviving next of kin of Goldie Jones v. Dana A. Watson,and Sheree Watson

Darryl Jones, as the surviving next of kin of Goldie Jones, filed a wrongful death action in Shelby County Circuit Court against Dana A. Watson and Sheree Watson following a fatal motor vehicle accident. The defendants' insurer, Allstate, offered a settlement, but complexities arose due to a worker's compensation claim and a separate wrongful death action filed by Goldie Jones' son, Polk, which prevented the settlement from being finalized. Years after the initial filing, the defendants moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the plaintiff failed to comply with Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 3 and 4 regarding service of process, thus barring the claim under the statute of limitations. The trial court granted this motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed, holding that the defendants were equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense due to Allstate's repeated offers and confirmations of settlement, which led the plaintiff to reasonably delay prosecution. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion.

Equitable EstoppelStatute of LimitationsWrongful DeathMotor Vehicle AccidentService of ProcessInsurance SettlementAppellate ReviewTennessee LawCivil ProcedureWorkers' Compensation Subrogation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. National Westminster Bank USA (In Re Q-C Circuits Corp.)

This case involves an appeal from a bankruptcy court's summary judgment concerning the priority of an IRS tax lien against National Westminster Bank USA (NatWest) in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding for Q-C Circuits Corp. The District Court affirmed the bankruptcy court's finding that NatWest received cash collateral payments and sale proceeds without providing proper notice to the IRS, thereby violating the IRS's superior lienholder rights. The District Court modified the order to award prejudgment interest to the Government, compelling NatWest to disgorge funds sufficient to satisfy the outstanding tax lien, including interest, due to its use of funds that should have been available to the Government.

IRS tax lienPriority disputesCash collateralAdequate protectionBankruptcy proceedingsSummary judgmentPrejudgment interestDisgorgement of fundsNotice requirementsSecured creditors
References
23
Case No. 2015-03-0899
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2016

Spencer, Gerald v. National State Park Concession d/b/a Cades Cove Riding Stables

Employee Gerald Spencer sought temporary disability and medical benefits for alleged right knee and hip/back injuries from an August 1, 2015, work incident at National State Park Concession d/b/a Cades Cove Riding Stable. The court found proper notice of the injury but denied knee-related benefits, as Mr. Spencer failed to present medical evidence refuting Dr. Harrison's opinion that the work injury contributed less than 50% to his pre-existing knee problems. Conversely, the court granted Mr. Spencer medical treatment for his right hip/back/myofascial pain, as the employer did not refute Dr. Harrison's finding linking it to the work injury. However, temporary disability for hip/back/myofascial pain was denied due to lack of medical proof of inability to work. The matter is set for an Initial (Scheduling) Hearing on September 7, 2016.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingKnee InjuryHip InjuryMyofascial PainCausationNotice of InjuryPre-existing ConditionMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 513 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