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

Davidson v. Lewis Bros. Bakery

Charles Wayne Davidson injured his shoulder in 2001 while working for Lewis Brothers Bakery and filed a workers' compensation claim, also naming the Second Injury Fund. After a voluntary non-suit in 2004, Davidson refiled the claim later that year, after the one-year statute of limitations had run. The Fund argued that the "savings statute" (Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-1-105(a)) did not apply to claims against it due to sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court of Tennessee agreed, holding that the savings statute does not waive the Fund's sovereign immunity and thus does not "save" claims against it after the statute of limitations has expired. The court modified the trial court's order, dismissing the Second Injury Fund and removing its liability for benefits and costs.

Workers' CompensationSecond Injury FundSovereign ImmunitySavings StatuteStatute of LimitationsVoluntary Non-SuitTennessee LawAppellate ReviewPermanent Total DisabilityWorkplace Injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harber v. Leader Federal Bank for Savings

Judith Harber sued Leader Federal Bank for Savings after her ex-husband made unauthorized transactions on her account, including converting a Large Denomination Certificate (LDC) to an Instant Access account and forging her signature for withdrawals. The trial court partially granted summary judgment to both parties, ruling some claims were barred by a one-year statute of limitations (Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-4-406), but found the bank acted in bad faith regarding two withdrawals. The appellate court affirmed that Harber ratified the conversion by seeking interest benefits and that the one-year limit applied to six unauthorized withdrawals, affirming the finding of bad faith and prejudgment interest. However, the court reversed, holding that the one-year limitation did not apply to the conversion transaction itself or claims regarding interest checks, as these did not involve 'items' or 'debit entries' as defined by the statute. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Forged SignatureUnauthorized WithdrawalsBank LiabilityUniform Commercial CodeUCC Article 4Statute of LimitationsRatification DoctrineGood Faith RequirementPrejudgment InterestBreach of Contract
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weil v. Long Island Savings Bank, FSB

Plaintiffs, a class of individuals who obtained residential loans from Long Island Savings Bank FSB (LISB) between 1983 and 1992, sought class certification in a lawsuit alleging that LISB charged excessive legal fees that were used to fund illegal kickbacks to its CEO. The action, brought under federal statutes like RICO, TILA, RESPA, and New York General Business Law, claimed fraud and negligent supervision related to these undisclosed payments. Defendants opposed the class certification, citing issues with Rule 23 requirements such as numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation, as well as arguments about the predominance of individual issues and the statute of limitations. The Court, presided over by Senior District Judge Platt, addressed each of the defendants' arguments, ultimately finding that the plaintiffs met the criteria for class certification. Consequently, the motion for class certification was granted.

Mortgage FraudKickback SchemeClass CertificationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23RICO ActTruth in Lending Act (TILA)Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)Equitable TollingStatute of LimitationsAdequacy of Representation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibraltar Savings Ass'n v. Turnbough

Gibraltar Savings Association and Johnson Loggins, Inc. appealed an order denying their pleas of privilege to be sued in Harris County. Robert Turnbough, injured while working, filed a cross-action against them in Ft. Bend County, alleging a cause of action under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act for illegal premium collection and negligence. The appellate court examined the applicability of various venue statutes (Art. 8307, Sec. 5; Art. 1995 Subdivisions 4, 9, 23, 29a). It found that Turnbough failed to prove that the alleged tortfeasor, Aitkins, was acting within the scope of his employment or that the defendants had an agent in Ft. Bend County. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and transferred the cause to Harris County.

Venue DisputePlea of PrivilegeWorkers' Compensation ActTort ClaimScope of EmploymentNegligenceJoint Venture LiabilityEmployer ResponsibilityStatutory ConstructionAppellate Reversal
References
8
Case No. 08-02-00452-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2003

Jesse Davila v. Pay & Save Corporation D/B/A Lowe's Market Place, Inc.

Jesse Davila appealed a summary judgment against him in favor of his former employer, Pay & Save Corporation, doing business as Lowe's Market Place, Inc. Davila was fired after another employee accused him of sexual harassment. He sued Pay & Save, alleging defamation, negligence, invasion of privacy, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment for Pay & Save on all claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Davila failed to establish error regarding his claims, and denied Pay & Save's motion for damages for frivolous appeal.

Sexual HarassmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment AppealDefamation ClaimNegligence ClaimInvasion of PrivacyFraud AllegationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployer LiabilityScope of Employment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roettger v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County ex rel. Electric Power Board

This workers' compensation appeal addresses whether Tennessee's savings statute (T.C.A. § 28-1-105) can extend the limitations period against a governmental entity that has voluntarily accepted the provisions of the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act (T.C.A. § 50-6-106(5)). The plaintiff, injured on May 2, 1994, filed a claim that was voluntarily dismissed on February 15, 1996. A new complaint was filed on November 5, 1996, more than one year after the injury but within one year of the dismissal. The trial court ruled that the savings statute does not apply to a governmental entity protected by sovereign immunity. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed this decision, holding that voluntarily accepting the Workers’ Compensation Act does not imply submission to the separate savings statute, as there is no specific legislative authorization for saving suits against the State.

Sovereign ImmunitySavings StatuteWorkers' Compensation ActLimitations PeriodGovernmental EntityMunicipal CorporationVoluntary AcceptanceDismissalRemand
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dukes v. Montgomery County Nursing Home

The plaintiff initiated a worker's compensation claim for a back injury sustained on April 12, 1976. The trial court dismissed the action, ruling it was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations and that a subsequent refiling after a voluntary nonsuit was not saved by the relevant statute because the original action was also untimely. The plaintiff contended that the defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations, including assurances of payment and settlement offers, should estop them from asserting the statute of limitations defense. The Supreme Court concurred, finding that the defendants' conduct did indeed estop them from relying on the statute of limitations for the initial lawsuit. This estoppel legally rendered the first action as 'commenced within the time limited by a rule or statute of limitation,' thus making the savings statute applicable to the second action. Consequently, the Court reversed the trial court's dismissal and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing.

worker's compensationstatute of limitationsequitable estoppelfraudulent misrepresentationsavings statutevoluntary nonsuitback injuryemployer liabilityinsurance carrierTennessee law
References
10
Case No. W2005-01796-SC-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2007

Robert Dye v. Witco Corp. A/K/A Witco Corporation et.al.

Robert Dye, an employee of Witco Corporation, developed an allergic skin condition which he believed was work-related due to chemical exposure. Witco initially paid medical expenses but ceased payments after an internal investigation and an initial medical opinion suggested the condition was not work-related. Dye filed a workers' compensation claim, voluntarily dismissed it, and then refiled it over a year later. The trial court granted summary judgment to Witco, finding the claim barred by the statute of limitations and not saved by the savings statute. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed, holding that the claim was indeed time-barred and that a single, isolated voluntary medical payment made after the statute of limitations had run did not revive the claim.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsSavings StatuteSummary JudgmentVoluntary PaymentsMedical TreatmentAllergic ConditionOccupational DiseaseCompensabilityPermanent Medical Impairment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De La Fuente v. Home Savings Ass'n

This case concerns an appeal regarding a suit on a note for aluminum siding installation services. Appellants Pedro and Paula de la Fuente argued violations of the Texas Consumer Credit Code and the Home Solicitation Sales Act against appellee Home Savings, the assignee of the contract. The appellate court found that the contract unlawfully provided for a first lien on the de la Fuentes' residence and that the note was assigned to a third party on the same day it was executed, violating the Home Solicitation Sales Act. Consequently, the contract was deemed void and unenforceable. The court reversed the lower court's judgment, ruling in favor of the de la Fuentes and awarding them $4,000 plus $3,500 in attorney's fees.

Consumer Credit LawHome Solicitation SalesPromissory NoteContract DisputeUnlawful LienHolder in Due Course DoctrineAssignee LiabilityAttorney's Fees AwardContract EnforceabilityRetail Installment Contract
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

FSI Group v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

Plaintiff FSI, a New York limited partnership, filed a complaint against defendant First Federal Savings and Loan Association, based in South Dakota, alleging repudiation and breach of a standby agreement to purchase Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) securities. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The court, presided over by Judge Motley, denied the defendant's motion, finding that personal jurisdiction was established under New York CPLR § 301 and § 302(a)(1) due to the defendant's purposeful business transactions within New York through agents. Furthermore, the court determined that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York, considering the limited partnership's principal place of business as its residence for venue purposes, distinct from its individual partners.

Personal JurisdictionImproper VenueLimited PartnershipBreach of ContractStandby AgreementGNMA SecuritiesMinimum ContactsDue ProcessAgent ActivityPurposeful Availment
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 3,365 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