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. ADJ9580180
Regular
Sep 15, 2015

SARAH SCOFIELD vs. SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by AIMS

This order denies Sarah Scofield's petitions for reconsideration in her workers' compensation case against Santa Clara County Superior Court. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in its decision. Therefore, the petitions for reconsideration are denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetitions for ReconsiderationWCJ reportdenialADJ9580180Santa Clara County Superior CourtPermissibly Self-InsuredAIMSSarah ScofieldSan Jose District Office
References
0
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01069 [158 AD3d 703]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2018

Matter of Bella S. (Sarah S.)

The case "Matter of Bella S. (Sarah S.)" involves an appeal from a Family Court order that found Sarah S. (mother) neglected her child, Bella S. The Administration for Children's Services had petitioned, alleging the mother's untreated bipolar disorder and other mental illnesses put the child at risk. The Family Court agreed, but the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this finding. The Appellate Division concluded that the petitioner failed to prove inadequate treatment or imminent harm, noting the mother's consistent efforts in seeking housing, prenatal care, methadone treatment, and psychiatric medication. Consequently, the petition against the mother was denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

Child NeglectParental RightsMental IllnessBipolar DisorderAdequate TreatmentAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofImminent DangerFamily Court ActKings County
References
8
Case No. 02-15-00338-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2018

Town of Shady Shores v. Sarah Swanson

This interlocutory appeal by the Town of Shady Shores challenges the denial of its summary judgment motions against its former city secretary, Sarah Swanson. Swanson sued the Town alleging wrongful discharge, Texas Whistleblower Act violations, and constitutional free speech and due course claims, primarily seeking declaratory relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) based on Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) violations. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Swanson's UDJA claims seeking a declaration that her termination was void under TOMA, injunctive relief for public meeting transparency, and attorney's fees. However, the court reversed and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Swanson's UDJA claims for back pay, constitutional due course violations, and free speech claims. The court concluded that Swanson lacked a protected property or liberty interest and that her speech was employee speech, not citizen speech.

Interlocutory AppealSummary JudgmentGovernmental ImmunityDeclaratory ReliefTexas Open Meetings ActTexas Whistleblower ActPublic Employee SpeechDue ProcessEmployment TerminationJudicial Review
References
68
Case No. 2015-07-0195
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2016

Love, Sarah v. Delta Faucet, Co.

This interlocutory appeal concerns an employer's challenge to a trial court's award of medical and temporary disability benefits for an employee's right shoulder injury. Employee Sarah Love alleged a work-related injury while working for Delta Faucet Company, which the employer initially accepted but later denied, citing prior shoulder issues. The trial court found sufficient evidence to establish that the employee would likely prevail on the merits and granted benefits, crediting the authorized treating physician's opinion despite inconsistencies. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the evidence did not preponderate against its findings, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Board also highlighted significant procedural issues related to the submission of irrelevant and unorganized medical records.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryCausationMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsAppeals Board DecisionCredibility AssessmentMedical Expert OpinionTreating Physician PresumptionInterlocutory Appeal
References
7
Case No. M2020-01651-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2022

Trevor Adamson v. Sarah E. Grove

Plaintiff Trevor Adamson filed a defamation lawsuit against Sarah E. Grove, Deborah Ann Sangetti, and Karl S. Bolton, which he voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. The defendants then filed a motion to alter or amend the dismissal and a petition to dismiss with prejudice under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA), seeking attorney fees and sanctions. The trial court granted the defendants' petition, dismissing the case with prejudice and awarding $15,000 in attorney fees and $24,000 in sanctions. Adamson appealed, challenging the trial court's jurisdiction after the nonsuit. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the defendants' TPPA petition because it was filed after the voluntary nonsuit, and no exceptions to the nonsuit rule applied. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order, vacated the dismissal with prejudice and awards, and remanded the case for entry of an order granting Adamson's request to dismiss without prejudice.

DefamationVoluntary DismissalNonsuitAnti-SLAPP LawTennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA)Subject Matter JurisdictionAttorney FeesSanctionsAppellate ReviewCivil Procedure
References
73
Case No. J-5125, 01A01-9612-CV-00566
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 1999

Sarah Beth Clingan Overstreet v. Shoney's, Inc.

Sarah Beth Clingan Overstreet suffered permanent vision loss in her left eye after being struck by a ceramic plate shard at a Shoney’s restaurant. She filed a negligence lawsuit in Putnam County Circuit Court against Shoney's, Inc., where a jury awarded her $2,013,000. Shoney’s appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, Nashville, challenging various trial court decisions including evidentiary rulings and the jury's damage award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the lower court properly exercised its discretion and that the jury's substantial damage award for permanent impairment and disfigurement was supported by material evidence. The court found no duplicative damages and upheld the denial of a remittitur, recognizing the profound physical and psychological impact of the injury on Ms. Overstreet's life and career.

Personal InjuryNegligenceDamagesVision LossEye InjuryEmotional DistressLoss of Earning CapacityAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulingsVerdict Form
References
165
Case No. 04-09-00401-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2010

Texas Mutual Insurance Company v. Sarah Ochoa

Sarah Ochoa sustained a lumbar sprain injury at work and filed a workers' compensation claim. Texas Mutual Insurance Company, the carrier, initially accepted the lumbar sprain but disputed later claims of extensive lumbar disc pathology as an ordinary disease of life. The hearing officer found a sprain/strain injury superimposed on pre-existing degenerative conditions but also ruled that Texas Mutual waived its right to contest the extent of injury by not timely disputing it within 60 days, making the degenerative conditions compensable. Texas Mutual appealed to the state district court, which granted Ochoa's no-evidence motion for summary judgment. This appellate court reverses and remands the trial court's judgment, holding that the 60-day waiver rule in the Texas Labor Code does not apply to extent-of-injury disputes, citing Texas Supreme Court precedent.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentWaiver RuleExtent of Injury DisputeLumbar SprainDegenerative Disc DiseasePre-existing ConditionAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeJudicial Precedent
References
7
Case No. 07-13-00095-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2014

in the Matter of the Marriage of Sarah Glynn and Tony Glynn and in the Interest of T.G., a Child

Sarah Glynn initiated divorce proceedings against Tony Glynn in June 2010. Tony Glynn appealed the subsequent divorce decree, challenging the trial court's decisions to allow his attorney to withdraw and to deny his motion for continuance, in addition to disputing the division of marital property. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion by the trial court regarding the attorney's withdrawal or the denial of continuance, citing sufficient time afforded to Glynn to secure new counsel. Furthermore, the appellate court upheld the marital estate division, noting Glynn's failure to provide clear and convincing evidence to overcome the community property presumption for contested assets. Consequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.

DivorceMarital EstateProperty DivisionAttorney WithdrawalContinuance DenialAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewCommunity PropertySeparate PropertyIncarceration
References
39
Case No. E2008-02483-CCA-R9-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2010

State v. John Cote and Sarah Cote, In Re: Dr. Sandra Elkins

The State of Tennessee and Dr. Sandra Elkins appealed a trial court's discovery order, which granted John and Sarah Cote's request for Dr. Elkins's personal medical and employment records. The Cotes, accused in a minor child's death, sought these records related to Dr. Elkins, the medical examiner who performed the victim's autopsy, arguing their materiality to their defense. The appellate court, treating the appeal as a common law writ of certiorari, found that the Cotes failed to make a plausible showing that the requested privileged information was material and favorable to their defense, a necessary prerequisite for an in camera review. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order for in camera inspection and remanded the case, also explicitly ruling that records from the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners are absolutely protected from disclosure.

Criminal ProcedureDiscoveryIn Camera ReviewPrivileged InformationMedical RecordsMental Health RecordsEmployment RecordsMedical ExaminerDue ProcessCertiorari
References
49
Case No. 05-20-00484-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2021

Chloe's Concepts, LLC, Robert Conner and Sarah Conner v. Clear Rainbow, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from the denial of a motion for new trial following a no-answer default judgment. Appellants Chloe’s Concepts, LLC, Robert Conner, and Sarah Conner, failed to demonstrate that their failure to respond to the lawsuit was not intentional or a result of conscious indifference. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial. The decision also addressed the appellants' arguments regarding unliquidated damages and the sufficiency of affidavits for proving damages in a default judgment, finding that affidavits can satisfy the requirement for evidence. Consequently, the trial court's judgment against the appellants for breach of promissory notes was upheld.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionPromissory NotesBreach of ContractDamages Proof
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 74 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