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

Carr v. United Parcel Service

The case addresses a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee concerning individual liability under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). Plaintiff Kelly Carr alleged sexual harassment against her employer, United Parcel Service (UPS), and three UPS employees. The individual defendants moved for judgment, arguing they could not be held individually liable. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the THRA's 'agent of an employer' language does not impose individual liability, aligning with federal interpretations of Title VII. While the THRA provides for accomplice liability for individuals who aid, abet, incite, compel, or command an employer's discriminatory practice, the Court found no evidence under the certified facts to hold the non-supervisory and supervisory defendants individually liable for either co-worker harassment or supervisor-created hostile work environment, as their actions did not constitute aiding and abetting the employer's failure to take remedial action.

Sexual HarassmentTennessee Human Rights Act (THRA)Individual LiabilityEmployer LiabilityTitle VIICertified Question of LawRespondeat SuperiorAiding and AbettingHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo Harassment
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 1997

Spiteri v. Chatwal Hotels

Plaintiff John Spiteri, an elevator repairman, suffered a fractured left heel after falling from a permanently affixed ladder while attempting to repair a broken elevator at the Best Western President Hotel. The ladder was not equipped with any safety devices. President Hotel Company (owner) moved to dismiss the complaint, and plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court found that plaintiff's work qualified as 'repair' under Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the ladder, as the sole means of access to the elevator control room, subjected him to the type of risk the statute intended to obviate. Consequently, the appellate court modified the lower court's decision, granting the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. However, claims against President under Labor Law § 241 (6), § 200, and common-law negligence were dismissed due to insufficient evidence regarding construction site activity, supervisory control, or knowledge of ladder defects.

Ladder FallPersonal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentNon-delegable DutyElevator RepairRoutine Maintenance vs. RepairOwner LiabilityWorkplace SafetyAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. 01S01-9605-FD-00090
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 1997

Kelly Carter v. United Parcel Service

Kelly Carr filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against her employer, United Parcel Service, and three employees, Ron Foster, Martin Sisk, and Andrew Martin, alleging violations of Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). The U.S. District Court referred a certified question to the Tennessee Supreme Court regarding individual liability under the THRA. The Supreme Court held that the THRA's definition of "employer" and its "agent of an employer" language do not impose individual liability. While the THRA allows for accomplice liability, the Court found the facts insufficient to impose individual liability on any of the named employees, whether supervisory or non-supervisory, for aiding and abetting an employer's violation.

Sexual HarassmentIndividual LiabilityTennessee Human Rights ActTHRATitle VIIEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo Harassment
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anzaldua v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co.

This worker's compensation case involves an appeal by Esther Anzaldua against American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, the compensation carrier. Anzaldua was injured on the job and sued after rejecting an award from the Texas Industrial Accident Board. A jury awarded her damages for partial incapacity and medical expenses, but Anzaldua appealed, alleging the medical award was insufficient, that certain medical reports were improperly admitted due to hearsay, and that a supplemental jury charge was coercive. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the jury's verdict supported by evidence, the medical reports properly admitted, and the supplemental charge not coercive.

Workers' CompensationMedical ExpensesJury VerdictEvidence AdmissibilitySupplemental Jury ChargeCoercionIncapacityAppealTexas LawInsurance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2016

Estate of M.D. ex rel. DeCosmo v. New York

Plaintiffs, Louis DeCosmo, as administrator of M.D.'s estate and father of J.D., sued various state and county defendants, along with individuals, alleging constitutional rights violations, negligence, assault and battery, wrongful death, and survival action under state law. The claims stemmed from the alleged failure of child protective services to intervene effectively, leading to M.D.'s death and J.D.'s injuries while in their mother's custody and her abusive partner's care. Defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity for state defendants and failure to state a claim for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, supervisory liability, and Monell liability for county defendants. The Court granted the State Defendants' motion based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, dismissing claims against New York State and OCFS. Claims against Dutchess DCFS and Ulster DSS were dismissed as they lack the capacity to be sued. The Court further dismissed Fourth Amendment claims due to a lack of alleged affirmative seizure by Dutchess Defendants and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims, finding no state-created danger or special relationship exception applied as M.D. and J.D. were not in state custody. Supervisory and Monell liability claims against county defendants also failed due to the absence of an underlying constitutional violation and insufficient factual allegations of unconstitutional policies or customs. Consequently, all federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Civil RightsChild AbuseGovernmental ImmunityEleventh AmendmentFourth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment Due ProcessState-Created DangerSpecial RelationshipMonell DoctrineSupervisory Liability
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. White

Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Company appealed a worker’s compensation judgment concerning Ira Gillis White, who sustained a back injury. A jury found White totally incapacitated for three months and permanently partially incapacitated thereafter, establishing his weekly earning capacity at $150 during the partial incapacity period. Electric Mutual contended that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of White’s pre-injury wages and that the jury’s finding on earning capacity was unsupported or against the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, explaining that worker’s compensation aims to compensate for loss of earning capacity, not just actual wages, and that post-injury earnings do not conclusively prove capacity. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's assessment of White's diminished earning capacity, considering his pain and physical limitations despite continued employment.

Worker's CompensationIncapacityEarning CapacityBack InjuryHerniated DiscMedical EvidenceWage ExclusionJury FindingsAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 1990

Fullenwider v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co.

This is an appeal in a worker's compensation case. The plaintiff, Lucille Fullenwider, alleged she developed industrial asthma while working for Motorola, Inc., leading to total and permanent incapacity. The jury found she did not suffer an occupational injury, and the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company. The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in permitting two undisclosed expert witnesses to testify when interrogatories requesting their names were not supplemented thirty days prior to trial. The appellate court concluded that while the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony without a finding of good cause, the error was harmless as the plaintiff was not prejudiced, and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Expert Witness TestimonyDiscovery RulesGood Cause ExceptionTrial Court DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionHarmful ErrorWorker's CompensationIndustrial AsthmaOccupational InjuryUndisclosed Witnesses
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capps v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co.

Archie Capps appealed a take-nothing judgment, arguing that American Mutual Liability Insurance Company improperly deducted both worker's compensation and social security benefits from his disability insurance payments. Capps, disabled in 1972, received disability policy payments from 1973 and a lump-sum worker's compensation settlement in 1974, which included attorney's fees. He also received monthly social security benefits. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the insurance policy's anti-duplication clause permitted the deduction of both worker's compensation and social security payments. Furthermore, the court found that attorney's fees awarded in the worker's compensation case were part of the total amounts payable and were properly deducted, and that the calculation of payments was correct.

AppealDisability InsuranceWorker's CompensationSocial Security BenefitsAnti-duplication ClauseAttorney's FeesLump-sum SettlementBenefit DeductionsPolicy InterpretationInsurance Law
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 5,335 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