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

Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Curry

Circuit City Stores, Inc. and Diana Beaufils filed an original petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s denial of their request to compel Ronald Giacoma to arbitration. Giacoma, a former employee, initially agreed to an arbitration program but later sued for retaliatory discharge after being fired. The court examined whether an enforceable arbitration agreement existed, considering Giacoma's arguments of no agreement, fraudulent inducement, and unconscionability. The appellate court found a valid agreement under the Federal Arbitration Act and determined the trial court abused its discretion by not enforcing it. Consequently, the writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, ordering arbitration and a stay of the civil action.

Arbitration AgreementMandamusRetaliatory DischargeEmployment ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActContract EnforcementAbuse of DiscretionOpt-out ProvisionFraudulent Inducement DefenseUnconscionability Defense
References
16
Case No. 3:12-cv-1009
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2013

Phipps v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

The defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss class claims brought by the plaintiffs, Phipps et al. This case is a follow-on action to a larger nationwide class action against Wal-Mart (Dukes) that was decertified by the Supreme Court. The central issue is whether the American Pipe tolling doctrine extends to subsequent, narrower class actions (subclasses) after the original broad class was denied certification. The court reviewed prior circuit court decisions and recent Supreme Court precedents, noting inconsistencies and criticisms of rigid interpretations. Despite concerns about fairness and judicial economy, the court felt bound by the Sixth Circuit precedent in Andrews v. Orr, which held that American Pipe tolling does not apply to additional class actions by putative members of the original asserted class. Consequently, the court granted Wal-Mart's motion, dismissing the class claims as time-barred, though individual claims were allowed to proceed.

Class ActionStatute of LimitationsAmerican Pipe TollingRule 23Sex DiscriminationTitle VIIEmployment LawMotion to DismissJudicial PrecedentSubclass Certification
References
38
Case No. ADJ3125089 (POM 0296138)
Regular
Apr 29, 2014

ROBERT FERNANDEZ vs. CIRCUIT CITY/CSIF

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the WCJ's decision in the case of Robert Fernandez v. Circuit City/CSIF. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the matter for further proceedings and a new decision. This action was taken, in part, because the lien claimant's petition was not brought to the Board's attention within the statutory 60-day period, but the period was tolled due to fundamental due process principles. The decision is not a final determination on the merits, and parties retain their rights.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeGrant ReconsiderationRescind DecisionFurther ProceedingsStatutory Time PeriodDue ProcessTolledActual Notice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2011

In re Giannis F.

The Family Court in Bronx County granted an application for a child to testify at a fact-finding hearing via two-way closed-circuit television, subject to cross-examination. This decision was affirmed by the Appellate Division. The court properly balanced the respondent mother’s due process rights with the emotional well-being of the child in permitting the child to testify outside their presence. An affidavit from a social worker, detailing multiple interviews with the child and consultations with another social worker, sufficiently established the potential trauma. An evidentiary hearing was deemed unnecessary as the mother failed to present evidence challenging the social worker's assessment or expertise.

Child TestimonyClosed-Circuit TelevisionSexual AbuseDue ProcessEmotional Well-beingSocial Worker AssessmentFamily CourtAppellate DivisionEvidentiary HearingTrauma
References
3
Case No. Appeal No. 01-A-01-9609-CV-00389, Davidson Circuit No. 87C-239
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 1997

Moon v. St. Thomas Hospital

This lawsuit stemmed from the death of Ray Elmer Garrett at St. Thomas Hospital, who died after biting through an endotracheal tube following surgery. The Davidson County Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the hospital, concluding the events were not reasonably foreseeable. Plaintiff Freda Moon appealed, arguing that summary judgment was improper. The Court of Appeals reviewed the standards for summary judgment in medical malpractice cases, focusing on the foreseeability of the injury and the recognized standard of professional practice in Nashville. The court found the plaintiff's expert opinions insufficient due to their failure to establish the local standard of care and the inaccuracy of the factual basis, ultimately affirming the trial court's decision.

Medical MalpracticeHospital NegligenceEndotracheal TubeForeseeabilityStandard of CareSummary JudgmentExpert TestimonyPost-Operative ComplicationsPatient AgitationWrongful Death
References
28
Case No. Shelby Circuit No. 47678 T.D.; C.A. No. 02A01-9602-CV-00038
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1996

Darryl Jones, as surviving next of kin of Goldie Jones v. Dana A. Watson,and Sheree Watson

Darryl Jones, as the surviving next of kin of Goldie Jones, filed a wrongful death action in Shelby County Circuit Court against Dana A. Watson and Sheree Watson following a fatal motor vehicle accident. The defendants' insurer, Allstate, offered a settlement, but complexities arose due to a worker's compensation claim and a separate wrongful death action filed by Goldie Jones' son, Polk, which prevented the settlement from being finalized. Years after the initial filing, the defendants moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the plaintiff failed to comply with Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 3 and 4 regarding service of process, thus barring the claim under the statute of limitations. The trial court granted this motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed, holding that the defendants were equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense due to Allstate's repeated offers and confirmations of settlement, which led the plaintiff to reasonably delay prosecution. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion.

Equitable EstoppelStatute of LimitationsWrongful DeathMotor Vehicle AccidentService of ProcessInsurance SettlementAppellate ReviewTennessee LawCivil ProcedureWorkers' Compensation Subrogation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. National Westminster Bank USA (In Re Q-C Circuits Corp.)

This case involves an appeal from a bankruptcy court's summary judgment concerning the priority of an IRS tax lien against National Westminster Bank USA (NatWest) in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding for Q-C Circuits Corp. The District Court affirmed the bankruptcy court's finding that NatWest received cash collateral payments and sale proceeds without providing proper notice to the IRS, thereby violating the IRS's superior lienholder rights. The District Court modified the order to award prejudgment interest to the Government, compelling NatWest to disgorge funds sufficient to satisfy the outstanding tax lien, including interest, due to its use of funds that should have been available to the Government.

IRS tax lienPriority disputesCash collateralAdequate protectionBankruptcy proceedingsSummary judgmentPrejudgment interestDisgorgement of fundsNotice requirementsSecured creditors
References
23
Case No. ADJ3588884 (FRE 0222309) ADJ4330880 (FRE 0223217)
Regular
Feb 22, 2011

ENEDELIA LUNA vs. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, UNITED ARTISTS THEATRE CIRCUIT; AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered By BROADSPIRE

This case concerns American Motorists Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration of a Joint Findings and Award. The original award addressed two admitted industrial injuries sustained by the applicant, one against Fresno Unified School District (FUSD) and another against United Artists Theatre Circuit, insured by American Motorists. The petition specifically challenges the WCJ's failure to incorporate a stipulated liability apportionment between the defendants into the award. The Appeals Board denied the petition, ruling that the WCJ correctly deferred the issue of contribution between co-defendants, as they remain jointly and severally liable to the applicant.

Petition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardSpecial Education Teacher's AideCumulative InjuryBilateral Upper ExtremitiesPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentPermissibly Self-InsuredStipulated Percentage of LiabilityContribution Between Co-Defendants
References
5
Case No. 00-CV-8660
Regular Panel Decision

Debary v. Harrah's Operating Co., Inc.

This case, involving Catskill Development, L.L.C., Mohawk Management, L.L.C., and Monticello Raceway Development Co., L.L.C. (Original Plaintiffs) against Park Place Entertainment Corp., concerned allegations of tortious interference related to a proposed Native American casino project. Following multiple prior decisions and appeals, the Second Circuit remanded the case for the District Court to address jurisdictional issues and determine Monticello's status as a third-party beneficiary of the Land Purchase Agreement (LPA). The District Court confirmed subject matter jurisdiction after dismissing non-diverse parties and consolidating related actions. Ultimately, the court concluded that Monticello was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the LPA. Consequently, the District Court reinstated its earlier judgment, granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing all claims in their entirety.

Tortious InterferenceContractual RelationsProspective Business AdvantageSummary JudgmentRemand OrderFederal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionThird-Party BeneficiaryLand Purchase AgreementNative American Casino Development
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Potts v. Celotex Corp.

This products liability case, on certification from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, addresses whether the discovery of one asbestos-related disease, asbestosis, triggers the statute of limitations for a separate, later-manifested disease, mesothelioma. Harold Lamar Potts, the petitioner's deceased husband, was diagnosed with asbestosis in 1975 and mesothelioma in 1987, dying from the latter. The federal district court had granted summary judgment for Celotex, applying a "single injury rule" and holding the claim barred. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, ruling that a cause of action for a separate and distinct asbestos-related disease does not accrue until that specific disease becomes manifest, thereby allowing the petitioner's claim to proceed.

Products LiabilityStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleAsbestos-Related DiseaseAsbestosisMesotheliomaSingle Injury RuleLatent DiseaseAccrual of Cause of ActionTort Law
References
44
Showing 1-10 of 539 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