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

Jackson Sawmill, Inc. v. West

This is a workers' compensation case before the Tennessee Supreme Court concerning whether Mr. West was an independent contractor or an employee of Jackson Sawmill, Inc. Mr. West, a logger, was injured while working for Jackson Sawmill, which then initiated the suit to clarify his employment status. The trial court determined Mr. West was an independent contractor, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court. The court applied several tests, including the right to control, method of payment, and provision of tools and labor, finding that Mr. West supplied his own equipment and crew, was paid per board foot, and had no taxes withheld. The Court concluded that Jackson Sawmill did not exert sufficient control over Mr. West's work methods to establish an employer-employee relationship, thus upholding the trial court's ruling.

Independent ContractorEmployee StatusEmployment LawTennessee Supreme CourtLogging IndustrySawmillRight to Control TestMulti-factor AnalysisAffirmation of JudgmentInjury Claim
References
6
Case No. ADJ4609174 (RDG 0041947)
Regular
Oct 27, 2010

DOYLE CANADA vs. REDDING POWER SAWMILL DIVISION, ESIS PORTLAND

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, Doyle Canada's petition for reconsideration was denied. The Board adopted the findings of the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge, whose report detailed the reasons for the denial. This order, dated October 27, 2010, upholds the original decision and denies further review. The defendants were Redding Power Sawmill Division and ESIS Portland.

WCABPetition for Reconsiderationworkers' compensation administrative law judgereport of the workers' compensation administrative law judgedeny reconsiderationADJ4609174Redding Power Sawmill DivisionESIS PortlandDoyle CanadaADJUDICATION
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stack v. Sawmill

Gaylon Stack sought workers' compensation benefits for the wrongful death of her husband, Danny Stack, who died from work-related injuries. The Chancellor denied benefits, finding Mrs. Stack was not dependent and was voluntarily living apart from her husband. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that Mrs. Stack's separation was not voluntary due to poor economic circumstances and physical abuse. Consequently, she was presumed wholly dependent upon her husband under T.C.A. § 50-6-210(a)(1). The case was remanded for an award of workers' compensation benefits to Mrs. Stack.

Wrongful Death ClaimDependency PresumptionVoluntary SeparationMarital MisconductEconomic NecessityPhysical AbuseAppellate ReversalRemand for BenefitsStatutory InterpretationWidow's Benefits
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duke v. Replogle Enterprises

Tom Duke, a timber cutter, filed a workers' compensation claim against Replogle Enterprises for an injury sustained in 1991. The defendant, operating under trade names, moved to dismiss the claim, asserting it lacked legal existence as a sueable entity. Duke subsequently sought to amend his complaint to name Nathan Replogle, the sole proprietor, as the proper defendant. However, this motion to amend occurred after the statute of limitations had expired. The central issue on appeal was whether the amendment adding a new party defendant could relate back to the original filing date under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.03. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's dismissal, concluding that the amendment did not relate back because the proper party defendant did not receive timely notice of the lawsuit before the statutory limitation period ended.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsAmendment of ComplaintRelation Back DoctrineMisnomerPartiesSole ProprietorshipDue ProcessNoticeTennessee Civil Procedure
References
6
Case No. ADJ7189601
Regular
Nov 26, 2012

MICHAEL CONTRERAS vs. REDWOOD EMPIRE SAWMILL, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves an industrial neck injury where the WCAB denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration on serious and willful misconduct and granted the defendant's petition. The Appeals Board modified the original award to reduce the Employment Development Department's (EDD) lien from $6,555.00 to $1,982.55, as the lien only applies to days with overlapping EDD and workers' compensation indemnity benefits. Consequently, the defendant received a larger credit for temporary disability overpayment, significantly reducing the applicant's net recovery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award & OrdersAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryNeck/Cervical SpinePermanent DisabilityTemporary Disability IndemnityEDD LienCredit for Overpayment
References
4
Case No. ADJ10304125
Regular
Oct 04, 2019

EDUARDO VEGA vs. REDWOOD EMPIRE SAWMILL, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves a worker seeking to reopen his claim for new and further disability following a 2014 lumbar spine injury. The applicant contended his disability had worsened to permanent total disability, citing vocational expert testimony and medical reports indicating increased work restrictions. However, the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) found no change in industrial disability, and his recent evaluation supported the original finding of no new and further disability. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the applicant's vocational evidence unpersuasive without a medical basis for increased disability.

New and further disabilityPetition for ReconsiderationVocational expertPermanent disabilityQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Petition to ReopenPrimary treating physicianWork restrictionsPermanent total disabilityLabor Code section 5410
References
2
Case No. ADJ210489 (EUR 30819)
Regular
Aug 28, 2008

RICHARD A. GREENE vs. EEL RIVER SAWMILLS, SELFINSURERS' SECURITY FUND

Reconsideration denied for $7,008.56 credit allowed to defendant for TDI overpayment against liability for further medical treatment. Applicant worked for another employer while receiving TDI.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEel River SawmillsSelf-Insurers' Security FundTemporary Disability IndemnityCreditOverpaymentMedical TreatmentIndustrial InjuryCleanup WorkerBankruptcy
References
3
Case No. SRO 0121152
Regular
Dec 12, 2007

GINGER DUNLAP-FENTON vs. EEL RIVER SAWMILLS, SELF-INSURERS' SECURITY FUND

This case involved a defendant's petition for reconsideration of an award for an applicant's industrial neck injury. The appeals board granted reconsideration, amending the original award to reduce the permanent disability rating from 23% to 17% and adjusting the applicant's attorney fees. The board adopted the WCJ's report, which specified the revised permanent disability indemnity, the calculation of attorney fees on remaining temporary disability and self-procured medical expenses, and affirmed other aspects of the original award.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardEel River SawmillsSelf-Insurers' Security Fundindustrial injuryblock stackerbankruptcytemporary total disabilitypermanent disabilityapportionmentself-procured medical treatment
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. W. T. Carter & Bro.

The appellant, an employee, sued the appellees, a sawmill and lumber manufacturing partnership, for damages due to injuries sustained from a falling limb while clearing a right-of-way. The appellant alleged negligence by the appellees for not providing a safe place to work, insufficient employees, and failure to warn of hazards. The appellees denied the allegations. The trial court instructed a verdict for the appellees, which the appellant appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no negligence on the part of the appellees, as the danger was created by the employees in the progress of the work, thus the safe-place doctrine did not apply.

NegligenceEmployer LiabilitySafe Place to Work DoctrineInstructed VerdictAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawOccupational InjurySawmill IndustryTexas JurisprudenceProximate Cause
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 1954

Lumbermen's Lloyds v. Loper

This Supreme Court opinion addresses a workmen's compensation case stemming from a disputed injury claim. The claimant, Loper, alleged a timber blow caused a fatal duodenal ulcer perforation while working at a sawmill. Despite a jury verdict against the claimant, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the decision due to improper arguments by the defendant's counsel. However, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's judgment, affirming the original trial court's verdict. The Court concluded that, based on the overwhelming evidence that no accident occurred, the improper arguments did not likely sway the jury's decision.

Workmen's CompensationImproper ArgumentJury VerdictMedical EvidenceExpert TestimonyCausationAppellate ReviewTrial Court AffirmationPre-existing ConditionsDuodenal Ulcer
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 14 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