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
Mar 10, 1997

Mason v. Seaton

This Tennessee Supreme Court case reviews a retaliatory discharge claim brought by employee Maxine O. Mason against her employers, Kenneth M. and Laurel Seaton. Mason was fired after reporting fire safety violations and locked exit doors at the defendants' hotel to city officials. The trial court initially dismissed the complaint, requiring proof that the employer explicitly directed the employee to remain silent. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this, and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the "whistleblower" statute (Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-1-304) does not require an employer to have expressly forbidden the employee from reporting illegal activities for a retaliatory discharge claim to stand. The Court found sufficient evidence of illegal activity and a causal link between Mason's report and her termination.

Retaliatory DischargeWhistleblower ProtectionEmployment LawSummary JudgmentPublic PolicyFire SafetyEmployee RightsTennessee Supreme CourtStatutory InterpretationWrongful Termination
References
16
Case No. 03-98-00048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 1998

Rowland & Rowland, P.C. v. Texas Employers Indemnity Company, in Receivership Mildred Mason William F. Mason, II Karen Reese Connie Parmer And Cinderella Dismukes

This case is an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of a special appearance filed by Rowland & Rowland, P.C., a Tennessee law firm. The underlying dispute involves Rowland & Rowland's distribution of wrongful death judgment proceeds awarded to the survivors of William Mason, a Texas trucker. Texas Employers Indemnity Company (TEIC) sued Rowland & Rowland for breach of contract, conversion, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, claiming the law firm failed to protect its subrogation interest. The trial court denied Rowland & Rowland's special appearance, finding sufficient specific in personam jurisdiction due to the firm's direct letter to TEIC's Texas office and its distribution of substantial judgment proceeds to Texas residents. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Rowland & Rowland had sufficient purposeful minimum contacts with Texas and that exercising jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Special AppearanceInterlocutory AppealPersonal JurisdictionMinimum ContactsSpecific JurisdictionDue ProcessFair Play and Substantial JusticeWrongful DeathWorkers' Compensation LienSubrogation Claim
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 1974

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Mason Coal, Inc.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) sought a permanent injunction against Mason Coal, Inc. to enforce a coal supply contract. Mason Coal halted deliveries, prompting TVA to seek judicial intervention due to an acute coal shortage and the critical need for power generation. The court determined that a valid contract existed between the parties, despite Mason Coal's refusal to formally execute it. Due to the unique nature of the specified coal, the energy crisis, and TVA's inability to secure alternative supplies, the court found TVA's legal remedies inadequate. Emphasizing the paramount public interest in a reliable electricity supply, the court granted the permanent injunction, ordering Mason Coal to resume deliveries while requiring TVA to make outstanding payments for past coal received.

Contract DisputeSpecific PerformancePreliminary InjunctionPermanent InjunctionCoal SupplyEnergy ShortageGovernment ContractsUnique GoodsInadequate Remedy at LawPublic Interest
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mason-Dixon Lines, Inc. v. Lett

The widow of C. V. Lett was granted workman's compensation by the Circuit Court for her husband's death due to a lightning strike while working for The Mason-Dixon Lines, Inc. Mason-Dixon appealed, claiming Lett was not an employee, was an independent contractor or casual laborer, a farm laborer, or that his death was an act of God. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's finding, concluding that Lett's death arose from his employment due to a special risk and that his employment was not casual. The judgment was upheld, with costs against Mason-Dixon.

Workers' CompensationLightning StrikeAct of God DefenseScope of EmploymentCausal EmploymentSpecial RiskEmployment StatusDeath BenefitsAppellate ReviewTennessee Law
References
6
Case No. 09-03-360 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2004

Mason Construction, Inc. v. Kevin Robertson D/B/A Bayou Drilling

Kevin Robertson d/b/a Bayou Drilling sued Mason Construction, Inc. for breach of contract related to drilling under-reams. A jury found Mason breached the contract and awarded Bayou damages. On appeal, Mason challenged the damages award and the trial court's refusal to submit instructions on the affirmative defenses of waiver and payment. The Court of Appeals found the evidence legally sufficient for damages but held that the trial court erred in refusing the waiver instruction, which was a controlling fact issue. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Contract LawBreach of ContractDamagesWaiverJury InstructionsLegal SufficiencyAppellate ReviewConstruction ContractLost ProfitsRemand
References
21
Case No. 09-03-217 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2004

TMC Foods L.L.C. D/B/A Popeye's Fried Chicken v. Jewel Mason

Jewel Mason sued her former employer, Popeye's, alleging retaliatory termination for filing a workers' compensation claim under Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 451.001. A jury found Popeye's violated the code and awarded Mason damages for mental anguish and exemplary damages, finding malice. On appeal, Popeye's challenged these awards on sufficiency grounds. The Court of Appeals found the evidence legally insufficient to prove malice, thus overturning the exemplary damages. Additionally, the court found Mason's testimony on mental anguish to be conclusory and legally insufficient, overturning that award as well. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed as modified, deleting both the mental anguish and exemplary damages.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimMaliceExemplary DamagesMental AnguishSufficiency of EvidenceClear and Convincing EvidenceIntentional TortAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
17
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01591 [159 AD3d 787]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2018

Bidnick v. Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of the State of N.Y.

Neal Bidnick, a long-standing member of the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons, was expelled following Masonic trials, despite initial reversals by the Masonic Commission of Appeals. This action arose after the Grand Lodge reinstated a guilty finding at its annual meeting, leading to Bidnick's expulsion. Bidnick sued the Grand Lodge and individual defendants for breach of contract, alleging wrongful expulsion, and defamation, claiming false statements of misappropriation. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division modified this order, granting the dismissal of the defamation claim against the Grand Lodge, denying dismissal of the defamation claim against individual defendants in their individual capacities, and denying the dismissal of the breach of contract claim. The court's decision addressed the application of Benevolent Orders Law and the _Martin_ rule concerning the liability of unincorporated associations and their members.

Breach of ContractDefamationExpulsionUnincorporated AssociationBenevolent Orders LawMasonic LodgeIndividual LiabilityRepresentative CapacityCPLR 3211 (a) (7) MotionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mason v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Charlie Mason, a 53-year-old truck driver, died of a heart attack while working a night shift in freezing weather. His widow filed a worker's compensation claim, asserting the heart attack was an occupational disease or an accidental injury resulting from his strenuous work conditions and long hours. The jury determined Mason had a heart attack but found it did not occur in the course of his employment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's 'take nothing' judgment, finding no error in the jury instructions regarding the definition of 'occupational disease' or the refusal to include a specific definition of 'accidental injury'.

Worker's CompensationHeart AttackOccupational DiseaseCourse of EmploymentJury InstructionsAccidental InjuryAppellate ReviewCausationTexas LawTruck Driver
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mason v. Pyramid Derrick & Equipment Co.

Elzie Ray Mason, an employee, sued Frank Nicklos, Stewart & Stevenson Oil-tools, Inc., and Pyramid Derrick & Equipment Corporation for injuries at a drilling site. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company intervened for workers' compensation subrogation. A jury found Stewart & Stevenson 60% negligent and Pyramid 40% negligent, but the trial court disregarded Pyramid's liability, entering judgment solely against Stewart & Stevenson. After Mason settled with Stewart & Stevenson, he appealed against Pyramid. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of Pyramid's negligence, reversing the trial court's decision. The case was remanded with instructions to render judgment against Pyramid and adjust rights between defendants considering the settlement.

Personal InjuryNegligenceJury VerdictAppealRemandSubrogationWorker's CompensationJoint TortfeasorsContributionIndemnity
References
6
Case No. 02 Civ.0032 VM
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2004

Campanella v. MASON TENDERS'DIST. COUNCIL PENSION

The Campanella brothers, retired participants, sued the Mason Tenders' District Council Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees, alleging multiple ERISA violations regarding pension benefit accrual, vesting standards, and credit for workers' compensation. They challenged the Plan's accrual ranges, anti-backloading provisions, and the policy regarding service credit during disability. The defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted the defendants' motion, finding that the Plan adhered to ERISA requirements on all substantive points, including minimum accrual standards and vesting. Additionally, claims for interest on delayed benefits and penalties against the Trustees for document production were denied, with the court concluding that no unreasonable delay or bad faith was demonstrated.

ERISAPension BenefitsDisability PensionAccrued BenefitsVesting StandardsStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationFiduciary DutyPlan Administration
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 116 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