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. M1999-00052-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2000

Isbell v. Travis Electric Co.

Timothy E. Isbell sued his former employer, Travis Electric Company, and its service manager, Milton Travis, for slander, libel, defamation, and tortious interference with contract after his former manager disclosed details surrounding his resignation, including drug test information, to a mutual client. Isbell resigned after being confronted about marijuana use and reassigned with a pay cut, and subsequently attempted to start his own competing business. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants on the slander and tortious interference claims. On appeal, Isbell argued that the trial court misapplied the substantial truth doctrine, failed to apply the doctrine of implication, and was incorrect in finding no contract existed, also challenging the denial of a new trial to add an invasion of privacy claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the statements made were substantially true and no contract for future work was proven, and that Isbell's new claim for invasion of privacy did not meet the standards for a post-judgment amendment or new trial.

DefamationSlanderTortious Interference with ContractDrug Test DisclosureEmployment DisputeEmployer LiabilityAppellate ProcedureDirected VerdictMotion to AmendInvasion of Privacy
References
78
Case No. Sumner Circuit No. 15078-C, C.A. No. 01A01-9709-CV-00492
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 1998

Benny Blankenship v. Estate of Joshua Bain

The central issue in this case is whether the Tennessee TennCare Program's statutory subrogation and/or assignment provisions are subject to the common law 'made whole' doctrine. Plaintiffs Benny and Sheila Blankenship, TennCare enrollees, were involved in an automobile accident, incurring substantial medical expenses, partially paid by TennCare. After settling with the at-fault party's insurer for less than their total damages, the Blankenships successfully argued in the trial court that TennCare's subrogation claim was barred by the 'made whole' doctrine. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, asserting that statutory subrogation, unlike contractual subrogation, does not implicitly incorporate the 'made whole' doctrine unless explicitly stated in the statute. The court further clarified that while the state's right of subrogation is not subject to the 'made whole' doctrine, it is subject to the ordinary and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the recipients.

SubrogationTennCareMade Whole DoctrineStatutory InterpretationMedicaidWorkers' CompensationAutomobile AccidentMedical ExpensesAttorney FeesEquitable Principles
References
7
Case No. W2019-02089-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2023

Commercial Painting Company, Inc. v. The Weitz Company, LLC (Dissent)

This dissenting opinion argues for extending the economic-loss doctrine to contracts for services, directly disagreeing with the majority's decision to limit its application to products liability cases. Justice Campbell contends that the doctrine's central purpose of preserving the boundary between tort and contract law is equally vital in service contracts, particularly within the construction industry. The dissent emphasizes the importance of upholding private allocation of risk through contractual agreements. It concludes that existing common-law principles are inadequate substitutes for the economic-loss doctrine in preventing disproportionate tort liability, as illustrated by the substantial punitive damages awarded in the underlying case, and that the creation of necessary exceptions would not be overly complex.

Economic Loss DoctrineContracts for ServicesTort LawContract LawConstruction SubcontractPunitive DamagesPre-judgment InterestRisk AllocationProducts LiabilityDissenting Opinion
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Psihoyos v. National Geographic Society

This case concerns a copyright infringement dispute brought by Louis Psihoyos against The National Geographic Society (NGS). Psihoyos alleged that NGS infringed copyrights in his photograph of a dinosaur fossil and an accompanying illustration by publishing similar works in its magazine. NGS moved for summary judgment, arguing the similarities were due to unprotectible elements like common subject matter, or covered by doctrines such as merger and scenes a faire. The court analyzed the substantial similarity of the photographs, illustrations, and overall layout, finding that protectible elements were not substantially similar. Ultimately, the court granted NGS's motion for summary judgment and denied Psihoyos's cross-motion.

Copyright InfringementPhotographyIllustrationSummary JudgmentSubstantial SimilarityMerger DoctrineScenes A FaireIntellectual PropertyArtistic WorksDinosaur Fossil
References
33
Case No. CV-23-1764
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Suzette Northrop

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning claimant Suzette Northrop's benefits for carpal tunnel syndrome and arthritis. Travelers Indemnity Company of America, initially accepting liability and paying benefits, later challenged a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision regarding the date of disablement and subsequently argued it was not the proper carrier, seeking to place responsibility on Sentry Casualty Company. The WCLJ and the Board determined that Travelers was barred by the doctrine of laches from denying coverage due to an inexcusable delay in raising the defense and the resultant prejudice to Sentry. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the application of the laches doctrine.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeLaches DoctrineInsurance Carrier LiabilityDate of DisablementAppellate ReviewPrejudice in Workers' CompensationDelayed Coverage DenialWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionEquitable Defenses
References
6
Case No. 06-00-00054-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2001

New Boston General Hospital, Inc. v. Texas Workforce Commission

New Boston General Hospital, Inc. and James J. Naples, DPM, Inc. appealed a summary judgment rendered in favor of the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) and Becky Borgeson. The appellants argued that the summary judgment evidence did not constitute substantial evidence to support the TWC's Payday Law Decision and that the alleged underlying contract with Ms. Borgeson was illegal and unenforceable under federal and state anti-kickback statutes. The court found substantial evidence supporting a bona fide employment relationship and a commission agreement, noting that statutory exceptions and safe-harbor provisions applied. The court also rejected the due process argument regarding New Boston's representation, applying the doctrine of virtual representation. The trial court's judgment was affirmed, and the motion for rehearing was overruled.

Substantial Evidence ReviewSummary Judgment AppealWage ClaimTexas Labor CodeMedicare Anti-Kickback StatuteEmployment LawContract EnforcementVirtual Representation DoctrineDue ProcessAppellate Procedure
References
22
Case No. 91 B 10891
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Financial News Network Inc.

This memorandum decision addresses motions by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel, counsel for the debtor (Financial News Network, FNN) and the equipment lessors committee respectively, seeking payment of prepetition fees in FNN's Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. Gibson, Dunn sought payment through the assumption of an employment agreement at a premium rate, while Kramer, Levin sought compensation under Section 503(b) for substantial contribution. The court denied Gibson, Dunn's motion, ruling that professional compensation is governed by Sections 327-330 of the Bankruptcy Code, not Section 365, and rejected the "doctrine of necessity" in this context. Kramer, Levin's motion for prepetition fees was also denied, without prejudice, as the court deemed the determination of "substantial contribution" premature and best addressed at the conclusion of the case.

Chapter 11Bankruptcy LawPrepetition FeesCounsel FeesExecutory ContractProfessional CompensationDoctrine of NecessitySubstantial ContributionDebtor-in-possessionBankruptcy Code Section 365
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2003

Cram Roofing Co., Inc. v. Parker

Cram Roofing Company appealed a trial court judgment in favor of Dennis Parker in a libel suit. Parker sued Cram Roofing and its president, Gary Cram, after Cram Roofing's attorney sent letters accusing Parker of "voluntarily terminating" his employment and engaging in "illegal activities" by violating a non-competition agreement. The jury found Cram Roofing libeled Parker and awarded him $50,000 for mental anguish. On appeal, Cram Roofing challenged the statute of limitations, the defamatory nature of the statements, the substantial truth of "illegal activities," and the handling of the non-competition agreement's validity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Parker's libel claim was not time-barred and that the jury reasonably found Cram Roofing's statement about "illegal activities" was defamatory and not substantially true.

LibelDefamationNon-competition agreementBreach of contractStatute of limitationsRelation back doctrineMental anguishCivil Practice and Remedies CodeJury verdictSubstantial truth
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Xue Ming Wang v. Abumi Sushi Inc.

Plaintiff Xue Ming Wang sued Abumi Sushi Inc. and Qing Zhong Li for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law (NYLL), and New York General Business Law § 349 violations, stemming from his employment as a delivery worker. The core legal dispute centered on whether the defendants, who acquired the restaurant's assets in June 2015, were liable for violations predating the sale under successor liability doctrines. The Court considered both traditional common-law and federal common-law 'substantial continuity' tests. It concluded that the traditional test did not apply due to lack of ownership continuity, and under the 'substantial continuity' test, the plaintiff failed to prove the defendants had notice of the alleged pre-sale violations. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, denied the plaintiff's motion, and dismissed claims related to pre-June 2, 2015 conduct against the appearing defendants.

Successorship LiabilityFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawGeneral Business Law § 349Wage and Hour ViolationsAsset SaleConstructive NoticeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawLabor Dispute
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2000

Dolcefino v. Randolph

This defamation suit involved appellants Wayne Dolcefino, KTRK Television, Inc., and others (media defendants) appealing the denial of their motion for summary judgment against appellees Cynthia Everett Randolph and Lloyd E. Kelley. The appellees' claims arose from television broadcasts and statements made by Dolcefino concerning Kelley's conduct as City Controller, specifically regarding a subcontract awarded to his former campaign treasurer, Steven Plumb, and Kelley's work habits, including an outing to a water park during business hours. The appellate court examined the substantial truth of the reported statements and whether they were made with actual malice. The court found that the alleged defamatory statements were substantially true or constituted non-actionable opinion, and that appellees failed to present sufficient evidence of actual malice. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of the appellants, dismissing the defamation claims and dependent claims of negligent supervision and conspiracy.

DefamationSummary JudgmentMedia DefendantsPublic Official DefamationActual Malice StandardSubstantial Truth DefenseInterlocutory AppealTexas Civil PracticeFreedom of SpeechGovernment Transparency
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 7,606 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