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

Corum v. Holston Health & Rehabilitation Center

This Supreme Court opinion addresses whether the failure to file a statistical data (SD1) form contemporaneously with a final judgment in a workers' compensation case affects the judgment's finality for appeal purposes. The employer, Holston Health Care and Rehabilitation Center, appealed an adverse workers' compensation ruling, arguing the appeal time hadn't begun due to the missing SD1 form. The employee, Linda J. Corum, contended the appeal was untimely under Rule 4 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Court held that the Supreme Court's procedural rules supersede conflicting statutes, ruling that a workers' compensation judgment is final on the date of entry by the trial court clerk, regardless of the SD1 form's filing. Consequently, the employer's appeal was dismissed as untimely.

Workers' CompensationAppeal TimelinessSD1 FormFinal JudgmentStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureTennessee Supreme CourtRule 4Judicial PowerLegislative Intent
References
20
Case No. 14-11-00902-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2012

Deandrew Price v. Uni-Form Components Company

Deandrew Price, a temporary employee provided by AGL Elite Business Solutions, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Uni-Form Components Company (UCC) in his negligence suit. Price sustained a severe foot injury while working as a machine operator at UCC. UCC asserted the affirmative defense of exclusive remedy under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA), claiming Price was a temporary employee covered by its workers' compensation insurance and presented a certificate of insurance. Price challenged the coverage, arguing UCC failed to produce the full policy and that his personal affidavit indicated no workers' compensation involvement from UCC. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding UCC sufficiently established coverage through the certificate and affidavit, noting that an employer cannot split its workforce regarding workers' compensation coverage and that premium payment issues do not affect an employee's coverage.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExclusive Remedy ProvisionTemporary EmployeeBorrowed Servant DoctrineNegligenceInsurance CoverageTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
17
Case No. 2021-04-0295
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2022

Reed, Donnelle v. Express Employment Professionals

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board reversed a prior order that denied Express Employment Professionals’ Motion for Summary Judgment and remanded the case to the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims. In compliance with this mandate, the Court grants Express’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing Mr. Reed’s case with prejudice. The Court further orders Express to pay a $150.00 filing fee and to file a Statistical Data Form (SD-2).

Summary JudgmentAppeals BoardWorkers' Compensation ClaimsCase DismissalEmployer MotionRemand OrderFiling FeeComplianceTennessee LawAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. 2015-01-0259
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2016

Strickland, Carolyn v. Aramark

This case involved Carolyn Strickland (Employee) against Aramark (Employer) and Ace American Ins. Co. (Carrier). The case was dismissed with prejudice by Judge Thomas Wyatt on November 4, 2016. Ms. Strickland failed to file for a requisite hearing as ordered by the court, did not attend a scheduled status conference, and did not respond to Aramark's Motion to Dismiss. Consequently, the Court granted the employer's motion, dismissing the employee's claim. The filing fee was taxed to Aramark and/or its carrier, and they were ordered to file a statistical data form.

Failure to ProsecuteDismissalWith PrejudiceProcedural DefaultShow Cause HearingStatus ConferenceMotion to DismissWorkers' Compensation ClaimEmployee RepresentationEmployer Motion
References
0
Case No. 2015-06-0423
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2016

Black, James v. Prestige Group, LLC

This Order of Dismissal concerns an initial hearing held on July 11, 2016, where employee James Black, who was self-represented, failed to appear. Attorney Michael Haynie, representing the employer Prestige Group, LLC, informed the Court that he had not heard from Mr. Black since a prior Expedited Hearing Order. Consequently, Mr. Haynie made a verbal motion to dismiss the case. The Court found the motion well-taken, dismissing Mr. Black's claim for benefits under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act with prejudice. Additionally, the order taxes the $150 filing fee to Prestige Group, LLC and mandates the filing of a statistical data form.

DismissalFailure to AppearWorkers' Compensation ClaimsInitial HearingMotion to DismissSelf-Represented EmployeeFiling FeeStatistical Data FormRight to AppealAppellate Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Data Race, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.

This case involves claims of patent infringement by Data Race, Inc. (plaintiff) against Lucent Technologies, Inc. (defendant) regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,764,639 for a "System and Method for Providing a Remote User With a Virtual Presence To An Office." Data Race sought a preliminary injunction and damages, while Lucent counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. The court denied Data Race's motion for a preliminary injunction, granted Lucent's motion for summary judgment on damages, and found no literal or equivalent infringement by Lucent's Virtual Telephone product. Consequently, judgment was entered in favor of the defendant, Lucent Technologies, Inc., on the issue of infringement. The court declined to fully address Lucent's defenses of patent invalidity and unenforceability, deeming them moot.

Patent InfringementPreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentClaim ConstructionVirtual PresenceTelephonyData NetworkingVoice over IPPrior ArtPatent Validity
References
116
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital v. Sullivan

This case addresses a plaintiff's challenge to the defendant Secretary's Medicare reimbursement determination for 1976-1981, made through Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery for six documents and sought access to a large Medicare patient data base for statistical analysis. The defendant invoked the predecisional/deliberative process privilege for the documents and argued irrelevance and Privacy Act protections against data base disclosure. The court granted discovery for one document (27) and the data base, finding it relevant to challenges to the regulations 'as applied' and their contravention of Congressional intent. However, discovery was denied for other documents based on valid claims of deliberative process privilege, with one denial having leave to renew.

Medicare reimbursementdiscovery disputedeliberative process privilegePrivacy Actagency regulationshealth care financingadministrative lawpredecisional documentsdata accessfederal court
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Accardi v. Control Data Corp.

This case, a Memorandum and Order by District Judge Whitman Knapp, addresses an ERISA action where plaintiffs sought severance pay from their former employer, Control Data Corporation (CDC), following the sale of their division to Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP). Plaintiffs, initially employees of an IBM subsidiary, had their benefits, including severance pay, protected by a "Benefits Agreement" adopted by CDC upon acquisition. CDC denied severance, arguing the IBM plan didn't cover divestitures and citing its own policy. The court, applying an "arbitrary and capricious" standard, found CDC's interpretation of the IBM benefits plan, which it had adopted, to be clearly erroneous. The court concluded that the IBM plan indeed provided for severance in cases of dismissals due to division sales and did not require unemployment or prohibit "double recovery." Consequently, the court denied CDC's motion for summary judgment and granted it to the plaintiffs.

ERISASeverance PayEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationsCorporate DivestitureAcquisitionBenefit Plan InterpretationArbitrary and Capricious StandardControl Data Corporation
References
6
Case No. 2019-08-0191
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2021

Russell, Frederick v. Aluma Form, Inc.

Frederick Russell, an assembly technician for Aluma Form, Inc., suffered a left shoulder and neck injury in January 2018. The employer accepted a shoulder sprain but contested a labral tear and impingement. The Court reviewed conflicting medical testimony from Dr. Jones and Dr. Dalal regarding causation and impairment. The Court ruled that Mr. Russell successfully proved causation for his shoulder injury and that he was justified in seeking unauthorized treatment due to the employer's actions. Consequently, Aluma Form was ordered to pay permanent partial disability benefits of $11,879.49, temporary disability benefits of $9,308.86, and Mr. Russell's medical bills from Dr. Dalal and Memphis Surgery Center. Dr. Dalal was designated as the authorized treating physician for future medical benefits.

Shoulder InjuryLabral TearImpingement SyndromeMedical CausationPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityUnauthorized Medical TreatmentOrthopedic SurgeryWorkers' Compensation ClaimsRange of Motion Impairment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.

This is a purported class action brought by Kelley Cunningham and Tam-mye Cunningham against Electronic Data Systems (EDS) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid overtime wages. EDS moved for summary judgment, asserting the "Air Carrier Exemption" to the FLSA, arguing plaintiffs worked under the direction of American Airlines. The court denied this motion, stating that the "control prong" of the National Mediation Board test focuses on the relationship between the air carrier and the employer (EDS), not just the individual employees, and found genuine issues of material fact. Additionally, the court granted EDS's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim regarding FLSA's record-keeping requirements, as there is no private right of action for employees to enforce these provisions. Defendant may renew the motion for summary judgment with further evidence.

FLSA ExemptionsAir Carrier ExemptionRailway Labor Act CoverageOvertime Pay DisputeClass Action LawsuitSummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityNMB Control-Function TestTelecommunications Industry
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 954 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