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

Toney v. Mueller Co.

This is a workers' compensation appeal concerning the denial of an employee's (Mr. Toney) motion to set aside a judgment, filed under Rule 60.02, Tenn.R.Civ.P., alleging a mistake regarding the extent of his injury. Mr. Toney had been awarded benefits based on a 15% permanent partial disability, but later underwent a spinal fusion, leading him to argue the original assessment was mistaken. The trial court denied his motion, reasoning that the conditions for which he was later treated already existed at the time of the original trial. The appellate court affirmed, emphasizing that Rule 60.02 serves as an "escape valve" for inequity, not merely for changed circumstances or dissatisfaction, and found no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's ruling.

Rule 60.02Post-Judgment MotionPermanent Partial DisabilitySpinal FusionPercutaneous Lumbar DiskectomyMedical Impairment RatingJudicial DiscretionFinality PrincipleMistake of FactRadiculopathy
References
3
Case No. Docket No. 406
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2005

Frew v. Hawkins

This civil action, initiated in 1993, addresses the alleged failure of the State of Texas to implement a Medicaid program, specifically the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) program, for indigent children. A Consent Decree was approved in 1996 to ensure compliance, with the court retaining jurisdiction. Defendants subsequently filed a Rule 60(b) motion in November 2004, seeking either complete dissolution of the Consent Decree or its partial dissolution for urban areas, citing compliance with federal law and changed circumstances. Following a June 2005 hearing, the Court evaluated evidence concerning medical checkups, dental services, outreach efforts, and case management. The Court concluded that Defendants failed to demonstrate significant changed factual circumstances, that the proposed relief was suitably tailored, or that reasonable efforts were made to comply with the decree's obligations. Consequently, Defendants' Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief From Judgment was DENIED, affirming the continued prospective application of the Consent Decree.

Medicaid Program EnforcementEPSDT ServicesConsent Decree ModificationRule 60(b) MotionHealth Care AccessIndigent Children's HealthManaged Care PerformanceState Compliance IssuesOutreach EffectivenessDental Care Access
References
27
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. 2022-05-1109
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2023

Baugus, Alice v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company

The employee, Alice Baugus, sought to set aside an order approving the settlement of her workers' compensation claim, arguing she lacked the emotional or mental capacity to enter the agreement due to severe stress, anxiety, and medication. The trial court, Dale A. Tipps, denied her motion, concluding she failed to provide grounds for relief by clear and convincing evidence under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. On appeal, the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision. The Board emphasized that relief under Rule 60.02 is a rare and disfavored "exceptional remedy" for "extreme, unique, exceptional, or extraordinary cases" and is not intended for situations where circumstances change or a party is merely dissatisfied with an outcome, unless clear and convincing evidence of a Rule 60.02 condition is presented. The Appeals Board found the employee did not meet this burden.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementMental CapacityRule 60.02Abuse of DiscretionImpairment RatingCarpal Tunnel SyndromeAppeals BoardClear and Convincing EvidenceFinality of Judgment
References
3
Case No. No. 10-02-155-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2003

TIG Premier Insurance Company v. John Pemberton and Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

John Pemberton, an injured worker, received an impairment rating that included deep vein thrombosis (DVT). TIG Premier Insurance, his employer's insurer, later disputed the compensability of the DVT, arguing it was not work-related and that the 60-day rule for contesting an injury did not apply to 'extent of injury' matters. A TWCC hearings officer found no causal link but ruled TIG waived its right to contest due to the 60-day rule, a decision affirmed by an appeals panel. The district court granted summary judgment for TWCC. The Tenth Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Labor Code § 409.021(c)'s 60-day rule applies solely to the initial contest of an injury's compensability, not to subsequent disputes regarding the extent of an injury. The court rendered judgment for TIG, confirming the absence of a causal connection between Pemberton's fall and the DVT.

Workers' CompensationImpairment RatingDeep Vein ThrombosisStatutory ConstructionSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeWaiverCompensabilityExtent of InjuryJudicial Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TIG Premier Insurance Co. v. Pemberton

John Pemberton was injured on the job in 1996 and was later diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis (DVT). His employer's worker's compensation insurer, TIG Premier Insurance, did not initially dispute the overall injury but later challenged the compensability of the DVT, arguing it was not work-related. A TWCC hearings officer found no causal relationship between the fall and the DVT but ruled that TIG waived its right to contest the DVT's compensability by not doing so within 60 days of learning of it. TIG appealed this decision to the district court, where its motion for summary judgment was denied, and TWCC's motion was granted, affirming the 60-day rule's application. The appellate court reversed the lower court's judgment, concluding that the 60-day rule in Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 409.021(c) applies only to the initial response to a notice of injury, not to later disputes regarding the extent of an injury, and rendered judgment in favor of TIG based on the lack of causal connection.

Workers' CompensationDeep Vein ThrombosisImpairment RatingSixty-Day RuleStatutory ConstructionSummary JudgmentCausal RelationshipCompensability DisputeWaiver DefenseAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Banks v. Dement Const. Co., Inc.

The employer appealed the trial court's decision to reinstate the employee's workers' compensation claim, which had been dismissed due to the employee's failure to answer interrogatories. The trial court had invoked Rule 60.02(5) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure to relieve the employee from the dismissal order, reasoning that otherwise the claim would be barred by the statute of limitations, causing extreme hardship. However, the appellate court determined that the trial court abused its discretion by misinterpreting the scope of Rule 60.02(5). It clarified that this rule is intended for extraordinary circumstances of "overriding importance," not merely to circumvent a statute of limitations, especially when the delay was attributable to the plaintiff's own lack of diligence. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case, highlighting the importance of finality in legal proceedings.

Workers' CompensationRule 60.02(5)Statute of LimitationsDismissalAbuse of DiscretionFinality of JudgmentAppellate ReviewTennessee LawRelief from JudgmentExtraordinary Circumstances
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1994

United Transportation Union Local Unions 385 & 77 v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

This is a declaratory judgment action filed by the United Transportation Union and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (collectively, 'the Union') against Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company ('Metro'). The Union challenges Metro's Rule P as a violation of 45 U.S.C. § 60 (Section 60) of the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA). Rule P restricts employees from divulging company information or giving statements about accidents to external parties without company authorization, which the Union argues prevents employees from voluntarily furnishing information to interested parties as protected by Section 60. Metro moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending the dispute is governed by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and its exclusive grievance resolution procedures. The court denied Metro's motion, concluding that the Union's claim involves the interpretation of a federal statute (Section 60) and is therefore within federal jurisdiction, not preempted by the RLA.

Federal Employer's Liability ActFELARailway Labor ActRLASubject Matter JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentRule 12(b)Labor DisputesCollective Bargaining AgreementPreemption
References
5
Case No. W2009-01774-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2010

Stephen Ball v. Theodore Shockley

This is an appeal from the denial of a Rule 60.02 motion. The plaintiff, Stephen Ball, had previously sued the defendant, Theodore Shockley, for injuries arising out of a car accident. Shockley's motion for summary judgment was granted without opposition. Ball, after retaining new counsel, filed a motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, which the trial court denied. On appeal, Ball argued the trial court erred by denying his motion, asserting his former attorney was grossly negligent. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion as there was no evidence of negligence by Ball's former attorney and Ball failed to provide proof of a meritorious defense.

AppealRule 60.02 MotionSummary JudgmentExcusable NeglectAttorney ConductAbuse of DiscretionFinal JudgmentCivil ProcedureVehicular AccidentNegligence
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 10,911 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