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

Plasti-Line, Inc. v. Tennessee Human Rights Commission

A private employer, referred to as 'Appellant', brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of enforcement provisions within the Tennessee Human Rights Commission statutes (T.C.A. §§ 4-21-301 to 307). The Appellant argued that these statutes violated the separation of powers, the right to trial by jury, and judicial election provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. The Chancellor initially upheld the validity of the statutes and dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding no merit in the Appellant's claims. The Court highlighted that the Human Rights Commission functions as an administrative agency, administering public policy, and its orders are subject to judicial review and enforcement by the chancery court, thus not violating constitutional principles.

Human Rights LawDiscrimination LawEmployment DiscriminationAdministrative LawConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersRight to Jury TrialStatutory ValidityTennessee ConstitutionAppellate Decision
References
5
Case No. Tennessee Claims Commission No. 200057; Appeal No. 01A01-9901-BC-00018
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1999

Sinclair v. State of TN

Daniel L. Sinclair, a former Associate Director for Facilities Maintenance at Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU), appealed the dismissal of his whistleblower claim against the State of Tennessee. Sinclair alleged he was terminated in 1993 for reporting safety violations by his supervisor regarding asbestos removal, subsequently filing a claim under Tennessee's whistleblower statute (Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-1-304). The Tennessee Claims Commission initially dismissed the whistleblower claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, reasoning that the statute did not explicitly apply to the State and citing the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which protects the State from suit without express legislative authorization. Although the whistleblower statute was amended in 1997 to include state employees within its definition of 'employers,' both the Claims Commission and the Court of Appeals held that this amendment was not retroactive. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the whistleblower statute, as it existed at the time of Sinclair's termination, was not intended to apply to the State, and the subsequent 1997 amendment could not be applied retroactively as it would disturb vested rights, thereby upholding the lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Whistleblower protectionRetaliatory dischargeSubject matter jurisdictionSovereign immunityStatutory constructionRetroactive application of lawState employer liabilityTennessee Court of AppealsAsbestos safety violationsClaims Commission
References
6
Case No. E2012-02664-COA-R9-CV-FILED-JANUARY 16, 2014
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2014

Lisa Womble v. University Health System, Inc. d/b/a University of Tennessee Regional Medical Center

This case originated from an employment action filed by Lisa Womble, a nurse, after her termination from the University of Tennessee Regional Medical Center, which was operated by University Health System, Inc. (UHS), a private nonprofit corporation. Womble, classified as a 'leased' employee, retained certain university benefits. The trial court sua sponte ruled Tennessee Code Annotated section 49-9-112(a), the statute governing leased employees, unconstitutional, prompting an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court examined whether the statute constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority or an unconstitutional lending of the State's credit. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's determination, affirming the constitutionality of the statute and remanding the case for further proceedings.

employment lawconstitutional lawstate employeesleased employeeslegislative delegationlending of state creditpublic purposedue processadministrative procedureswrongful termination
References
26
Case No. M2023-00812-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2024

Stephanie Garner v. State of Tennessee, and its agency, Tennessee Department of Correction

Plaintiff Stephanie Garner sued the State of Tennessee and its agency, the Tennessee Department of Correction, alleging disability discrimination for refusal to hire. A jury found in Garner's favor, awarding $10,000 for lost wages and $5,000 in compensatory damages. Garner's counsel then sought nearly $700,000 in attorney fees, which the trial court reduced by 25% to $511,620. The Department appealed the fee award, arguing it was excessive and based on an incorrect legal standard. The Court of Appeals vacated the attorney fee award and remanded the case, citing the trial court's failure to provide clear and thorough explanations for its decision based on the factors outlined in Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, RPC 1.5.

Disability DiscriminationAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionTennessee Disability ActRule of Professional Conduct 1.5Excessive BillingVacate and RemandProportionality ArgumentLegal Standards
References
68
Case No. M2013-00898-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2014

American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania v. State of Tennessee

This case addresses an appeal by American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, and other Pennsylvania-domiciled insurance companies, challenging retaliatory insurance premium taxes imposed by the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance. The core issue revolves around whether Pennsylvania's surcharges for three specific Workers' Compensation funds are imposed upon Tennessee-domiciled insurance companies doing business in Pennsylvania, thereby triggering Tennessee's retaliatory tax statute. The Tennessee Claims Commission ruled in favor of the State, and the insurance companies appealed. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the Claims Commission's decision, concluding that the Pennsylvania surcharges constitute a burden on insurance companies and that the imposition of Tennessee's retaliatory tax is constitutional and proper, rejecting arguments related to due process, UAPA, Full Faith and Credit, Equal Protection, Commerce Clause, and Uniformity Clause.

Retaliatory TaxInsurance Premium TaxPennsylvania Workers' CompensationTennessee LawStatutory InterpretationInterstate CommerceDue ProcessUniform Administrative Procedures ActFull Faith and CreditEqual Protection Clause
References
24
Case No. M2013-00897-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2014

Valley Forge Insurance Company v. State of Tennessee

This case concerns Valley Forge Insurance Company's appeal against the State of Tennessee regarding the imposition of retaliatory insurance premium taxes. Valley Forge, along with other Pennsylvania-domiciled insurance companies, challenged these taxes, arguing that Pennsylvania's surcharges for three Workmen's Compensation funds are not imposed on Tennessee-domiciled insurance companies. The Tennessee Claims Commission ruled in favor of the state, a decision which the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed. The core issue revolves around whether certain Pennsylvania workers' compensation surcharges fall under Tennessee's retaliatory insurance premium tax statute. The court found that the surcharges are indeed imposed on insurance companies, not policyholders, and upheld the application of the retaliatory tax, rejecting arguments of due process, UAPA, full faith and credit, equal protection, and commerce clause violations.

Insurance Premium TaxRetaliatory TaxWorkers' Compensation SurchargesPennsylvania LawStatutory InterpretationEqual Protection ClauseFull Faith and Credit ClauseCommerce ClauseDue ProcessSummary Judgment
References
24
Case No. M2013-00904-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2014

Old Republic Insurance Company v. State of Tennessee

Five Pennsylvania-domiciled insurance companies challenged Tennessee's imposition of retaliatory insurance premium taxes. The core issue was whether Pennsylvania's surcharges for three Workmen's Compensation funds (Administration, Subsequent Injury, and Supersedeas) applied to Tennessee-domiciled insurers in Pennsylvania, thereby triggering Tennessee's retaliatory tax statute. The Tennessee Claims Commission ruled for the state, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The court found that Pennsylvania law indeed imposes these surcharges on insurers, creating a heavier burden on Tennessee companies and justifying the retaliatory tax. The court also rejected arguments concerning due process, the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, Full Faith and Credit, Equal Protection, Commerce Clause, and Uniformity Clause violations.

Retaliatory TaxInsurance Premium TaxWorkers' Compensation FundsStatutory InterpretationInterstate CommerceConstitutional LawState Tax LawInsurance RegulationTax RefundsImplied Repeal Doctrine
References
33
Case No. M2013-00885-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2015

Valley Forge Insurance Company v. State of Tennessee

This case addresses whether certain Pennsylvania workers’ compensation assessments trigger Tennessee’s retaliatory tax statute against Pennsylvania insurance companies operating in Tennessee. Five groups of Pennsylvania-domiciled insurance companies sought refunds of over $16 million in retaliatory taxes paid under protest. The Tennessee Claims Commission and the Court of Appeals upheld the State's imposition of these taxes. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, ruling that recent Pennsylvania statutory amendments (71 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 578) and administrative regulations shifted the direct financial burden of these assessments from insurance companies to employer-policyholders. The Court concluded that the insurance companies' role is merely administrative, involving the collection and remittance of payments, which does not constitute a direct financial burden sufficient to activate Tennessee's retaliatory tax law. Therefore, the retaliatory taxes were improperly imposed.

Retaliatory TaxInsurance LawWorkers' Compensation AssessmentsStatutory InterpretationPennsylvania LawTennessee LawTax RefundsAppellate ReviewLegislative IntentAdministrative Regulations
References
29
Case No. E2003-01685-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2004

Randall C. Hagy v. Commisssioner, Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development and Tennessee Distribution, Inc.

Randall C. Hagy was discharged from his employment with Tennessee Distribution, Inc. after refusing to handle materials he deemed offensive to his religious beliefs. The Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development denied Hagy unemployment benefits, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Chancery Court for Sullivan County. Hagy appealed to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, raising issues concerning the evidentiary support for the decision, alleged procedural violations of his right to a jury trial, and violations of his constitutional rights, including freedom of religion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding substantial and material evidence supported the Board's conclusion that Hagy was discharged for misconduct due to his refusal to perform job duties. The court also determined that the unemployment compensation law was a neutral and generally applicable law, thus not violating Hagy's free exercise of religion, and declined to address the jury trial issue as it was not raised in the lower court.

Unemployment CompensationReligious DiscriminationEmployee MisconductRefusal to WorkFreedom of ReligionAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative LawChancery CourtCourt of Appeals
References
9
Case No. M2013-01235-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2014

Kimberly A. Sparkman v. Burns Phillips, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Labor And Workforce Development, and First Tennessee Bank, N. A.

This appeal concerns the denial of unemployment compensation benefits to Kimberly A. Sparkman. She was terminated from her employment at First Tennessee Bank, N.A., for refusing an alcohol test after her supervisors detected alcohol on her. Sparkman had previously been warned that refusal to take such a test would result in termination. The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, the Appeals Tribunal, the Board of Review, and the Chancery Court all found her refusal to constitute work-related misconduct, thereby disqualifying her from benefits. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the smell of alcohol provided a reasonable basis for the test request and that her refusal, despite prior warning, was work-related misconduct under state law.

unemployment benefitsworkplace misconductalcohol testingrefusal to testemployment terminationjudicial reviewadministrative decisionTennessee lawappellate reviewreasonable suspicion
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 4,890 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