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. 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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Underwood v. Zurich Insurance Co.

Cas Underwood, an employee of BASF Corporation, sustained work-connected injuries from an explosion. He received a lump-sum disability award, which was later paid by Zurich Insurance Company. Subsequently, Underwood was diagnosed with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and petitioned to reopen the final judgment, seeking additional disability benefits. The trial court dismissed his petition to reopen, citing a Tennessee statute on the finality of lump-sum payments, but granted his motion for future medical expenses related to PTSD. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that an increase in disability after a lump-sum award does not constitute grounds for relief under Tenn.R.Civ.P. 60.02(5) and that timely notice was given for medical expenses.

Workers' CompensationPost-traumatic Stress DisorderLump-sum SettlementFinality of JudgmentRule 60.02Increased DisabilityMedical ExpensesNotice RequirementAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
17
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. 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. 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
Case No. E2020-00459-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2021

William Hunter Babcock v. Sonnia Elizabeth Lambert Babcock

The case involves an appeal concerning a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 motion for relief from a final judgment in a suit dissolving a business partnership. The defendant, Sonnia Elizabeth Lambert Babcock, failed to notify the court or opposing counsel of a change in her address after a trial court ordered the partnership's dissolution and asset liquidation. Consequently, she did not receive notice of the plaintiff's, William Hunter Babcock's, motion to adopt a final accounting or the subsequent judgment against her for outstanding debts. The trial court denied her Rule 60.02 motion, finding no excusable neglect. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, ruling that the defendant's failure to update her address constituted carelessness, not excusable neglect, and she failed to present a meritorious defense to the accounting.

Rule 60.02Final JudgmentBusiness Partnership DissolutionNotice RequirementsChange of AddressExcusable NeglectMeritorious DefenseAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTennessee Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2013

Christopher Furlough v. Spherion Atlantic Workforce, LLC

The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed lower court decisions regarding a workers' compensation settlement for Christopher Furlough. Furlough sought to set aside a Department of Labor-approved settlement with Spherion Atlantic Workforce, LLC, claiming inadequate representation and insubstantial benefits. The Supreme Court clarified that the Department's approval of a settlement implies approval of the accompanying SD-1 form, precluding judicial second-guessing of its completeness. The Court also ruled that administrative remedies were exhausted and Furlough was legally represented, making a court-approved settlement unnecessary. Crucially, Furlough's petition, filed nearly two years post-settlement, was deemed untimely under Rule 60.02(1), and relief under Rule 60.02(5) or inherent authority was inappropriate due to available remedies and Furlough's lack of complete fault.

Workers' Compensation LawSettlement AgreementAdministrative RemediesRule 60.02Independent ActionEquitable ReliefMedical Impairment RatingPermanent Partial DisabilityDepartment of Labor ApprovalSD-1 Form
References
50
Case No. E2018-02134-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2019

Kristin Marie Miclaus v. Andrei Miclaus

This case involves an appeal from the Probate Court for Cumberland County. The appellant, Andrei Miclaus (Father), appealed the trial court's denial of his Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 motion. This motion sought relief from a final decree of divorce, arguing he did not receive proper notice of the trial setting. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville determined that the appellant did not receive proper notice, therefore concluding that relief under Rule 60.02(1) should have been granted. The appellate court vacated the final decree of divorce and remanded the case for further proceedings.

DivorceChild SupportSpousal SupportMarital EstatePermanent Parenting PlanNotice of TrialDue ProcessRule 60.02Excusable NeglectMeritorious Defense
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 11,345 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