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. 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. 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. M2005-02050-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2006

State of Tennessee v. Marshall Ward Howell

The defendant, Marshall Ward Howell, appealed the revocation of his community corrections sentence, which was originally imposed after a guilty plea to sale of a controlled substance. The trial court revoked his sentence based on a positive cocaine drug test from his employer, Cooper Steel. Howell argued the test results were inadmissible under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-9-109(c). The appellate court ruled that a community corrections revocation is a 'criminal proceeding' but found Howell failed to prove his employer qualified under the Drug-Free Workplace Program statute. Additionally, the court found the drug screen results were properly admitted, satisfying statutory requirements for affidavits and good cause for the technician's absence. The appellate court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the sentence.

Criminal LawCommunity CorrectionsProbation RevocationDrug Test AdmissibilityControlled SubstanceDue ProcessAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationAffidavit Evidence
References
26
Case No. W2008-01832-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2009

Daniel Sanders v. Henry County, Tennessee

Daniel Sanders, a former Henry County employee, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to his employer in a retaliatory discharge claim. Sanders alleged he was terminated for reporting his supervisor, Alvin Misker, for viewing inappropriate, non-work-related content on a county computer, which he believed constituted 'illegal activities' under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-1-304. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Misker's actions, even if a violation of an internal 'use agreement' not applicable county-wide, did not rise to the level of 'illegal activities' that implicate fundamental public policy concerns as required by the whistleblower statute. The court emphasized that the statute is a narrow exception to the employment-at-will doctrine and requires more than an employee's belief that actions were 'wrong' or against 'public policy.'

Retaliatory dischargeWhistleblower statuteEmployment-at-willSummary judgmentIllegal activitiesPublic policyTennessee Code Annotated section 50-1-304County employeeWorkplace conductComputer use policy
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spears v. Morris & Wallace Elevator Co.

The case concerns whether a workers' compensation insurance carrier and its employees can be considered "third parties" under Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-914, allowing an injured employee to sue them in tort after receiving workers' compensation benefits. The plaintiff, an employee of Memphis Furniture Manufacturing Company, suffered a work-related injury and subsequently filed a lawsuit against Morris & Wallace Elevator Company, and later amended the complaint to include Frank Davis, an elevator inspector and employee of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (the workers' compensation carrier), along with Liberty Mutual itself. The Circuit Court of Shelby County granted summary judgment in favor of Davis and Liberty Mutual, a decision subsequently affirmed on appeal. The appellate court held that, under Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-902(a), the employer's insurer is explicitly equated with the employer, thereby legally precluding a separate tort action against the carrier or its employees as "third parties." This ruling establishes that under Tennessee's Workers' Compensation Act, the insurer is not a "third person" against whom a separate tort action can be maintained.

Workers' Compensation ActEmployer definitionInsurance carrier liabilityThird-party tort suitExclusive remedySummary judgmentRespondeat superiorStatutory interpretationAppellate decisionShelby County Circuit Court
References
6
Case No. 2018-08-0461
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2019

Wright, Marsha v. Tennessee CVS Pharmacy, LLC

Marsha Wright, an employee of Tennessee CVS Pharmacy, LLC, sustained post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after being held at gunpoint during a robbery at her workplace in November 2015. Despite treatment from Dr. Ahmad Al-Hamda and psychiatrist Dr. Melvin Goldin, she reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on November 18, 2018, with a 15% permanent impairment and was unable to return to her pre-injury occupation due to severe anxiety, panic attacks, and fear of the public. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims at Memphis found Ms. Wright entitled to additional disability benefits, awarding 275 weeks totaling $107,428.75 under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-242(a)(2), determining that an award under section 50-6-207(3)(B) would be inequitable given the extraordinary circumstances of her lingering mental health issues. Attorney fees of 20% were also approved.

PTSDWorkplace RobberyPermanent Disability BenefitsPsychological InjuryPsychiatric TreatmentWorkers' Compensation ClaimsMaximum Medical ImprovementImpairment RatingAttorney FeesTennessee Labor Law
References
3
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
Showing 1-10 of 7,713 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