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. 2016-02-0511
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2017

Dockery, James v. Morristown Distribution Services, Inc.

James Dockery, a truck driver for Morristown Distribution Services, Inc. (MDS), filed a Request for Expedited Hearing for medical benefits after injuring his right shoulder and neck while unloading freight on August 5, 2016. MDS denied the claim, asserting willful misconduct due to Mr. Dockery allegedly unloading without permission, in violation of the company's 'no-touch' policy. Conflicting testimonies were heard from Mr. Dockery, driver manager Johnny Trent, and safety manager Stephanie Headrick regarding permission to unload. The Court found that while Mr. Dockery knew the rule about not unloading unilaterally, MDS failed to prove he understood the danger, bona fide enforcement of the rule (as he wasn't disciplined), and that he lacked a valid excuse for unloading given the absence of lumpers and no alternative direction from Mr. Trent. Therefore, the Court held that Mr. Dockery is likely to prevail on the merits and granted his request for medical benefits, ordering MDS to provide a panel of physicians.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingWillful MisconductTruck Driver InjuryEmployer PolicyBurden of ProofTennessee LawPanel of PhysiciansInjury Claim
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cano v. GMAC Mortgage Corp. (In Re Cano)

This memorandum opinion addresses a class action brought by current and former Chapter 13 debtors, including the Canos, against GMAC Mortgage Corporation, L.L.C. Plaintiffs allege that GMAC improperly charged and collected undisclosed fees and costs during and after their bankruptcy plans, violating confirmed plans, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2016, and various Bankruptcy Code sections. The court partially grants GMAC's motion to dismiss certain claims based on specific Bankruptcy Code provisions (e.g., automatic stay, discharge injunction) which it found did not create private rights of action for post-confirmation conduct. However, the court denies dismissal for claims regarding violations of court orders confirming Chapter 13 plans and Rule 2016, affirming its jurisdiction and broad remedial authority under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to enforce these and protect the 'fresh start' principle of bankruptcy. The court also rejects GMAC's challenge to subject matter jurisdiction over a nationwide class action for such violations.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13 DebtorsMortgage ContractsGMAC MortgageFees and CostsDischarge InjunctionAutomatic StayRule 2016Section 105Class Action Lawsuit
References
130
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TXU Generation Co. v. Public Utility Commission

The Texas Court of Appeals, Austin, reviewed a direct appeal challenging the Public Utility Commission's Wholesale Market Oversight (WMO) Rule. Appellants, a group of market participants, argued the rule exceeded the Commission's statutory authority, was unconstitutionally vague, constituted an unconstitutional taking, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) regarding notice and concise statement of authority. The court, led by Justice Bea Ann Smith, affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule. It held that the Commission possessed broad authority under PURA to regulate the wholesale electricity market to protect public interest, consumers, and ensure reasonably priced ancillary services, even if some prohibited conduct was unintentional. The court also found the rule provided sufficient notice and did not invite arbitrary enforcement, nor did it constitute an unconstitutional taking or violate APA procedures. Ultimately, the court affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule, concluding that it reasonably promotes competition and fulfills legislative goals for the electricity market.

Electricity RegulationWholesale Energy MarketPublic Utility CommissionAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationConstitutional ChallengesMarket Power AbuseConsumer ProtectionTexas LawDirect Appeal
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kletter v. Fleming

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim alleging a violation of Labor Law article 6. The defendant, a dentist, worked for the plaintiff under a contract and, after termination, filed counterclaims for nonpayment and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law counterclaim and precluded the defendant from presenting proof for corrective work payment. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Labor Law article 6 was inapplicable as the claim was a common-law contractual remuneration claim and not a substantive violation. It also upheld the preclusion regarding payment for corrective work, citing the clear terms of the contract and the parol evidence rule, which barred extrinsic evidence of additional payment terms.

breach of contractlabor law violationwage disputecontractual remunerationparol evidence rulesummary judgmentpreclusion motionappellate reviewdentist employmentemployer-employee dispute
References
8
Case No. 2016-06-2191, State File No. 21968-2016
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2017

Ingram, Chad v. Grocers Inc. & Cold Storage Co., Inc.

Chad Ingram, an employee of Grocers Ice & Cold Storage Co., Inc. (operating as Creation Gardens), sustained a left wrist injury in March 2016. After receiving initial workers' compensation benefits and returning to work, he was terminated in December 2016 before his initial compensation period expired. Mr. Ingram sought increased permanent partial disability benefits, contending his termination was retaliatory due to his injury. However, Creation Gardens asserted the termination was for cause, citing Mr. Ingram's insubordinate and confrontational behavior, including customer complaints and aggressive interactions with his supervisor. The Court determined that Mr. Ingram was indeed fired for misconduct that violated ordinary workplace expectations, and he failed to prove his termination was pretextual. Consequently, the Court denied his claim for increased benefits and dismissed the case.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityEmployment TerminationMisconductWorkplace RetaliationCause for TerminationJudicial ReviewImpairment RatingEmployer-Employee DisputeLegal Precedent
References
2
Case No. 2016-08-0316
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2016

Spencer, John v. Supply Chain Solutions, LLC

John Spencer, a woodcutter for Supply Chain Solutions, LLC (SCS), sustained a work-related right-hand injury on November 25, 2015. After an initial delay in reporting and obtaining unauthorized medical treatment, he began authorized treatment with Dr. Christian Fahey on April 29, 2016, who placed him on light duty and later performed surgery. SCS terminated Mr. Spencer for alleged job abandonment, which the court found insufficient evidence for. The court ruled that Mr. Spencer is entitled to temporary partial disability benefits from April 29, 2016, to July 14, 2016, and temporary total disability benefits from July 15, 2016, to July 22, 2016.

Workers' compensationTemporary disability benefitsExpedited hearingRight-hand injuryJob abandonmentMedical treatmentSurgical procedureAverage weekly wageTennessee lawEmployment termination
References
6
Case No. 2016-06-1872
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2016

Neal, James v. Connect Express

James Neal, a truck driver for Connect Express, sustained injuries in an August 2016 motor vehicle accident. His claim for workers' compensation was denied by Connect Express, which alleged a willful violation of a safety rule, specifically speeding. In an expedited hearing before Judge Joshua Davis Baker in Nashville, the Court found that Connect Express failed to provide sufficient proof that Mr. Neal was speeding or that his actions constituted willful misconduct. Consequently, the Court granted Mr. Neal's request, ordering Connect Express to provide a panel of physicians for his medical care and to pay temporary disability benefits from the date of the accident.

Workers' CompensationMotor Vehicle AccidentTruck DriverExpedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsSafety Rule ViolationWillful MisconductAffirmative DefenseEvidence Admissibility
References
7
Case No. 2016-03-0301
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2016

Johnson, Garry Wayne v. Alloy Fabrication, Inc.

Garry Wayne Johnson, an employee of Alloy Fabrication, Inc., sought an expedited hearing for a January 6, 2016, workplace injury. The employer raised defenses of willful misconduct, failure to use a safety device, and failure to perform a duty required by law under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-110(a). The court found the employer failed to prove actual notice of safety rules, the employee's understanding of danger, or bona fide enforcement. Additionally, the employer could not demonstrate the employee willfully violated an OSHA duty given the lack of specific training. Consequently, the court denied the employer's motion for involuntary dismissal and concluded that Mr. Johnson is likely to prevail on the compensability of his injury.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingCompensability of InjuryWillful Misconduct DefenseSafety Device FailureDuty Required by LawOSHA RegulationsBurden of ProofInvoluntary DismissalProximate Cause
References
10
Case No. No. 06-03609, No. 06-03654
Regular Panel Decision

Padilla v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (In Re Padilla)

This case addresses how the Bankruptcy Code and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure affect a mortgage lender's right to collect 'Reimbursable Expenses' in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases. The Court examined the collection of such expenses both pre- and post-confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan. It held that Bankruptcy Rule 2016(a) governs the collection of these expenses by mortgage lenders in Chapter 13 cases, both pre and post-confirmation. The Court determined that while Section 506(b) limits pre-confirmation expenses for oversecured creditors, it does not apply post-confirmation. Furthermore, the Court found that failure to comply with Rule 2016(a) or the imposition of unauthorized expenses would entitle a debtor to relief, but that such conduct does not violate the automatic stay. The cross-motions for partial summary judgment were denied due to insufficient evidence regarding actual collection of disputed charges.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13Mortgage ServicingReimbursable ExpensesAttorney FeesBankruptcy ProcedureRule 2016(a)Section 506(b)Plan ConfirmationAutomatic Stay
References
86
Case No. 2016-08-0883
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2017

Betances, Miguel v. Brock Services, LLC

Miguel Betances, an employee, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking temporary disability benefits from October 5, 2016, and ongoing, after injuring his back at work on July 18, 2016. Brock Services, LLC, the employer, contended he was not entitled to benefits, claiming he was terminated for violating workplace attendance policies. The Court found Mr. Betances' testimony credible, concluding that Brock did not properly enforce its attendance policy by actually terminating him on August 14, 2016, and failed to accommodate his light duty restrictions or provide a justifiable reason for not doing so. The Court ordered Brock to pay accrued temporary partial disability benefits from October 5, 2016, through January 26, 2017, and accrued temporary total disability benefits from January 27, 2017, and ongoing, until an approved medical provider releases him to return to work or places him at maximum medical improvement.

Temporary Disability BenefitsWorkers' Compensation JudgeExpedited HearingAttendance Policy ViolationLight Duty RestrictionsAdministrative TerminationTemporary Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityMedical TreatmentBack Injury
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 16,627 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