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. 2021-08-0034
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This death claim involves Lawrence Williams, surviving spouse of Linda Williams, who contracted COVID-19 while employed by Methodist Lebonheur Healthcare. The primary dispute centered on the calculation of the maximum total death benefit. Methodist argued for a benefit capped at $184,918.50, based on Ms. Williams's weekly compensation rate. However, the Court, drawing on the precedent of Reynolds v. Free Serv. Tire Co. and interpretations of Tennessee Code Annotated, determined that the correct maximum total benefit was $447,300.00, calculated as 450 weeks times the state's average weekly wage. The Court found the reasoning in Reynolds persuasive, despite Methodist's objections regarding its citation status. Consequently, the Court ordered Methodist to pay Mr. Williams the higher death benefits.

Death ClaimWorkers' CompensationCOVID-19Surviving SpouseMaximum Total BenefitAverage Weekly WageStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawBenefit CalculationCase Precedent
References
5
Case No. 11-15-00123-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2016

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case involves an appeal from the judicial review of an administrative decision by a Texas Division of Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel. The panel had previously denied workers’ compensation death benefits to Mary Ann Tarango, surviving spouse of Manuel Tarango, due to alleged abandonment. The trial court subsequently reversed this administrative decision, ruling in favor of Mary Ann and entitling her to benefits. However, the Eleventh Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred by improperly placing the burden of proof on Liberty Insurance Corporation to demonstrate abandonment, rather than on Mary Ann Tarango as the party seeking judicial review. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewBurden of ProofAbandonmentDeath BenefitsSpousal EligibilityTexas Labor CodeAppeals PanelTrial Court ErrorAdministrative Decision
References
4
Case No. E2008-01596-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2009

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Evelyn Nye, individually and as surviving spouse of Hugh Todd Nye, brought a product liability action against Bayer Cropscience, Inc., and later solely against National Service Industries, Inc., d/b/a North Brothers, alleging her husband's mesothelioma was caused by asbestos exposure from products sold by North Brothers to his employer, DuPont. The jury initially found in favor of North Brothers, a verdict approved by the Trial Court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the trial court's judgment, finding errors in jury instructions, specifically regarding the application of the 'learned intermediary' or 'sophisticated buyer' doctrine to DuPont's knowledge of asbestos hazards, which improperly functioned as a directed verdict. The court also clarified the distinction between cause in fact and proximate cause concerning employer immunity under workers' compensation law. The case was remanded for a new trial with directives for proper jury instructions and verdict forms.

Asbestos ExposureMesotheliomaProduct LiabilityStrict LiabilityFailure to WarnJury InstructionsLearned Intermediary DoctrineSophisticated User DoctrineComparative FaultWorkers' Compensation Immunity
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This workers' compensation death case addresses the commutation of death benefits awarded to the surviving spouse and dependents of Delton Thomas Ponder, Sr., who died from a work-related heart attack. The trial court initially denied a lump sum payment, believing a 'special need' was required, despite acknowledging the surviving spouse's financial management abilities. The Supreme Court reversed, clarifying that Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6-229(a) no longer requires a 'special need' but rather focuses on the employee's best interest and the capability of wisely managing the commuted award. The Court found that the surviving spouse demonstrated exceptional financial acumen and that a lump sum award would be in the best interest of the family, as periodic payments were not essential for their support. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial court to commute the benefits to a lump sum for both the surviving spouse and the children, with the children's shares to be invested by the Clerk and Master.

Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsLump Sum CommutationDependent BenefitsSurviving Spouse RightsFinancial Management AbilityBest Interest TestStatutory Amendment InterpretationTennessee Workers' Compensation LawAppellate ReversalRemand for Commutation
References
3
Case No. 2020-05-0875
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2021

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The employee’s surviving spouse challenged the trial court’s decision denying his request for a lump sum payment of death benefits and attorneys’ fees. The surviving spouse additionally challenged the trial court’s denial of his counsels’ request for attorneys’ fees on the burial expenses paid by the employer. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court’s decision denying the surviving spouse’s request to commute the death benefits to a single lump sum and denying the award of attorney’s fees in a single lump sum. The Board also affirmed the trial court’s denial of an award of attorneys’ fees on the burial expenses paid by the employer, concluding they were not an issue at trial. Finally, the Board certified the trial court’s order as final.

Death BenefitsLump Sum PaymentAttorneys' FeesBurial ExpensesWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSurviving SpouseStatutory InterpretationAbuse of DiscretionTrial Court DecisionCommutation of Benefits
References
10
Case No. 2020-06-1013
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2021

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case concerns a dispute over attorney's fees in a death benefits claim. Jamie Henderson, the surviving spouse, appealed the trial court's decision to reduce her attorney's fees from 20% to 7.5% of the difference between recovery under Tennessee and Mississippi law. This is the second appeal on this issue. The Appeals Board concluded that workers' compensation judges, included within the definition of 'the department,' must deem attorney's fees reasonable if they do not exceed 20% of the award to the injured worker, as stipulated by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-226(a)(1). Consequently, the Board reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for approval of the attorney's fee originally agreed upon by the surviving spouse and her attorney.

Attorney's FeesWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationContingency FeesJudicial DiscretionDeath BenefitsTennessee Workers' Compensation LawLump Sum PaymentCourt of Workers' Compensation Claims
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This case addresses whether an arbitration proceeding, which determined a job classification was not discriminatory under a collective bargaining agreement but explicitly stated it lacked authority to rule on Human Rights Law violations, bars a subsequent proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights. Employees Betty Lingle and Joan Skinner initially filed a grievance and later complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging sex discrimination after their termination. Following an arbitration decision that denied relief but did not address Human Rights Law issues, their employer, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., sought a judgment declaring the Division lacked jurisdiction due to election of remedies. The court, presided over by John W. Sweeny, J., held that the arbitration did not constitute an election of remedies precluding the State Division from proceeding, as the arbitrator had no authority to decide Human Rights Law issues. Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, allowing the Human Rights Commission to continue with the employees' complaints.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case addresses whether a claim by a surviving spouse for death benefits, traceable to a 1951 injury, is time-barred under New York's Workers' Compensation Law. The Special Fund for Reopened Cases argued for the application of

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesDeath Benefits ClaimTime-Barred ClaimStatute of LimitationsContinuing JurisdictionClosed Cases ReopeningDisability ClaimCausal RelationVolunteer Firemen's Benefit Law
References
13
Case No. 2021-08-0034
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2022

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case concerns an appeal by Methodist LeBonheur Healthcare regarding the calculation of death benefits for Lawrence Williams, the surviving spouse of Linda Williams, a healthcare worker who died from COVID-19. The parties initially agreed on a settlement, but the trial court, presided over by Judge Deana C. Seymour, rejected it due to an inconsistent calculation of the 'maximum total benefit.' The trial court concluded that the maximum total benefit should be calculated by multiplying the state’s average weekly wage by 450 weeks, as per Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(15)(D). The Appeals Board, led by Presiding Judge Timothy W. Conner, affirmed the trial court’s decision, clarifying that while the weekly benefit rate is tied to the deceased employee's wages, the overall duration of payments is capped by an across-the-board limitation based on the state’s average weekly wage.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCOVID-19Maximum Total BenefitStatutory InterpretationState Average Weekly WageSurviving SpouseAppellate ReviewSettlement RejectionHealthcare Worker
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 7,108 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