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. M2016-01109-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2017

David R. Smith v. The Tennessee National Guard

This case involves a military service member's claim against the Tennessee National Guard pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) and Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-20-208. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, a decision affirmed in previous appeals based on sovereign immunity and the accrual date of the claim. In this third appeal, the Court of Appeals considered the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-20-208 and whether Smith's cause of action accrued prior to July 1, 2014. The court reversed the trial court's order of dismissal, holding that Smith's USERRA claim against the Tennessee National Guard did not accrue until July 1, 2014, when sovereign immunity was waived, thereby providing a judicial remedy. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

USERRA ClaimsSovereign Immunity WaiverCause of Action AccrualConstitutional LawSupremacy ClauseMilitary Employment RightsState Court JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawAppellate Procedure
References
36
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. 2018-03-0237
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2019

Travis, Fred v. Carter Express, Inc.

Fred Travis, II, an employee, suffered a right shoulder injury while working for Carter Express, Inc. Carter denied his claim and failed to timely initiate benefits, arguing an Indiana forum-selection clause applied and that Travis's injury description was inconsistent. The case was remanded from the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board to reconsider attorney's fees under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-226(d)(1)(b). The Court found Carter's failure to initiate benefits was incorrect, erroneous, and inconsistent with the law, as the forum-selection clause was void and Travis did not elect Indiana remedies. Considering the 'extremely limited circumstances' framework from Thompson v. Comcast Corp., the Court concluded that Carter's delay without an expert opinion to rebut medical evidence justified the award of attorney's fees. The Court granted Mr. Travis’s request for attorney’s fees totaling $28,244.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesExpedited HearingRemandJurisdictionForum-Selection ClauseMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsEmployer LiabilityTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. T20140324, T20140325, M2017-01114-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2018

Angela Stevens v. State of Tennessee

Angela Stevens and her daughter Lanesia were injured in an automobile accident with a state employee. They filed a claim with the Claims Commission and were awarded damages for medical expenses, vehicle loss, and pain and suffering. The State of Tennessee appealed the award, contending that the collateral source rule, which prevents defendants from using discounted medical expense rates to reduce liability, was abrogated by Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(d). The Court of Appeals, referencing its recent decision in Estate of Tolbert v. State of Tennessee and the Supreme Court's ruling in Dedmon v. Steelman, affirmed the Claims Commission's decision, holding that the collateral source rule was not abrogated by the statute for personal injury actions before the Claims Commission. The court emphasized that 'actual damages' are synonymous with 'compensatory damages' and there was no clear legislative intent to deviate from this common law meaning.

Collateral Source RuleActual DamagesCompensatory DamagesState LiabilityPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentMedical ExpensesClaims Commission ActStatutory InterpretationCommon Law
References
16
Case No. W2009-01068-CCA-R3-PD
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2012

Gerald Lee Powers v. State of Tennessee

The petitioner, Gerald Lee Powers, appeals the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Powers was convicted of first degree felony murder and aggravated robbery in 1998, and his convictions and death sentence were affirmed by the Tennessee Supreme Court in 2003. In this appeal, the petitioner raised multiple issues, including claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel regarding jury selection, voir dire, excessive caseloads, investigation of evidence, expert witnesses, and presentation of other suspects. He also challenged jury instructions, alleged state misconduct regarding evidence, and argued against the applicability of a specific Tennessee Code Annotated section. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee meticulously reviewed each claim, concurring with the post-conviction court's findings that all allegations were without merit and affirming the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief.

post-convictionfelony murderaggravated robberyineffective assistance of counseldeath penaltyjury selectionvoir diremitigationaggravating circumstancestrial errors
References
23
Case No. E2017-00942-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2018

Howard L. Greenlee v. Sevier County, Tennessee

This case concerns a personal injury claim filed by Officer Howard Greenlee against Sevier County, Tennessee, after he was attacked by a police dog during an apprehension attempt. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the county, ruling that Greenlee was a participant in the event prompting the dog's use, thus exempting the county from liability under Tennessee Code Annotated section 44-8-413(b)(1). However, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville reversed this decision. The appellate court clarified that the statute's exemption applies only to individuals involved in the wrongdoing that initiated police action, not to other lawful participants like Officer Greenlee. The case has been remanded for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation.

Police dog attackStatutory interpretationSummary judgment reversalTennessee Code Annotated 44-8-413Officer injuryGovernmental liabilityAppellate court decisionCanine unitTort claimLegal precedent
References
10
Case No. M2004-00846-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2005

State of Tennessee v. Wanda Dean Wallace

The State of Tennessee appealed the assessment of discretionary costs in an eminent domain action against property owner Wanda Dean Wallace. The Circuit Court had awarded Wallace discretionary costs after a jury found her entitled to damages exceeding the State's initial tender. The State argued its exemption from such costs in eminent domain cases. The Court of Appeals agreed, concluding that a 1994 amendment to Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-17-812 removed the express statutory authority to assess discretionary costs against the State. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Circuit Court's judgment and vacated the $5,650 award of discretionary costs against the State.

eminent domaindiscretionary costsstatutory interpretationappealTennessee lawgovernmental immunitysovereigntyexpert witness feesappraisal feesrule of civil procedure
References
22
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. M2005-00906-CCA-R9-DD
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2006

State of Tennessee v. Danny Strode

The defendant, Danny Strode, was indicted for murder and aggravated robbery, with the State seeking the death penalty. Strode moved to strike the death penalty, claiming mental retardation under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203(a). The trial court found him mentally retarded and ineligible for the death penalty, leading the State to pursue an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court reversed, ruling that mental retardation must manifest before age eighteen and found no evidence of an IQ below 70 or sufficient adaptive behavior deficits before that age. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Mental RetardationDeath PenaltyCapital PunishmentIQ TestAdaptive BehaviorStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawCriminal ProcedureAppealsExpert Witness
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 6,995 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