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

Thompson v. UGL UNICCO SERVICE CO.

The plaintiff, Richard A. Thompson, sued UGL Unicco Service Company for alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and state law claims of retaliatory discharge and violations of the Tennessee Disability Act (TDA) and Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed the FMLA claim because UGL Unicco did not meet the statutory definition of an 'employer'. The THRA disability discrimination claim was also dismissed as it is typically brought under the TDA, guided by ADA law. For the ADA and TDA claims, the court found Thompson failed to demonstrate a substantial limitation in major life activities due to his diabetes, thus not establishing a 'disability'. Finally, the court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the state law retaliatory discharge claim, finding no exercise of a statutory right related to the adverse action.

FMLAADATDATHRASummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeEmployment LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56Insulin-dependent Diabetes
References
42
Case No. M2010-01955-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2011

State of Tennessee, by and through Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter for the State of Tennessee v. NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company

This case involves the State of Tennessee suing NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company, a foreign tobacco product manufacturer, for failing to make required escrow deposits under the Tobacco Escrow Fund Act. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to Sumatra due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed, concluding that Sumatra had sufficient minimum contacts with the state through its intentional nationwide distribution system. The court found that Sumatra purposefully availed itself of the Tennessee market and that exercising personal jurisdiction was fair and reasonable. Additionally, the appellate court upheld the constitutionality of the Escrow Fund Act against Sumatra's affirmative defenses, remanding the case for the calculation of escrow funds owed by Sumatra.

Personal JurisdictionTobacco Escrow Fund ActMinimum ContactsStream of CommerceForeign CorporationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDue ProcessEqual ProtectionState Statutes
References
133
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Billy R. Phillips v. State of Tennessee v. Tennessee Technological University, State of Tennessee

This case addresses whether the State of Tennessee may be held liable for discretionary costs in workers' compensation claims. Plaintiff Billy R. Phillips, injured while employed by a state university, sought reimbursement for a treating physician's fee, court reporter costs, and a vocational disability expert's fee. The claims commission initially allowed only the physician's fee, a decision largely affirmed by the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Court held that the State's liability for costs is limited to those expressly permitted by the Tennessee claims commission statute or the Workers’ Compensation Act, specifically allowing the treating physician's fee under Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-226(c)(1) while denying other discretionary costs. The Court affirmed the claims commission's judgment on costs and upheld the Special Workers' Compensation Panel's modification of the plaintiff's disability award to thirty-seven percent.

Discretionary CostsWorkers' CompensationState LiabilityClaims CommissionStatutory InterpretationTreating Physician FeeCourt Reporter CostsVocational Disability ExpertRule 54.04Tennessee Code Annotated
References
5
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. 01-S-01-9508-CV-00126
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 1996

Ray Donald Hawkins v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County Tennessee - Concurring

Ray Donald Hawkins, an employee of Nashville Electric Service, sought workers' compensation benefits for a mental and emotional disability. This disability allegedly arose from the stress of being informed, falsely, that he was about to be terminated after thirty-one years of service. The trial court initially denied a motion to dismiss but later granted it, finding that the complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. On appeal, the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal. The panel concluded that depression resulting from an impending termination notice does not constitute an "accident" under Tennessee workers’ compensation law. The panel also rejected arguments regarding the trial judge's reconsideration of the motion to dismiss and the obligation to transfer the case to another judge, citing Tenn. R. Civ. Proc. 54.02 and 59.06.

Workers' CompensationMental DisabilityEmotional DisabilityStress-Related InjuryTerminationAccident DefinitionMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewTennessee LawEmployment Law
References
7
Case No. W2013-01817-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2014

Lataynia Jones v. Sharp Electronics Corporation

Plaintiff Lataynia Jones filed an action against Sharp Electronics Corporation alleging retaliation and interference under the Tennessee Disabilities Act (TDA). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Sharp, finding that the TDA does not mandate 'reasonable accommodations' as sought by Jones in the form of extended leave. Jones appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, reiterating that unlike federal law, the TDA does not impose a duty on employers to provide reasonable accommodations, and that Jones's disability prevented her from performing her job duties without additional leave time beyond what was provided by the FMLA and CBA.

Disability DiscriminationTennessee Disability Act (TDA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Summary Judgment AffirmationEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationAppellate Court DecisionShelby County Circuit CourtDepression and Bipolar DisorderCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lynch v. City of Jellico

The case consolidated appeals from Jerry Wayne Lynch and David A. Lozano, challenging the constitutionality of several provisions within the Workers’ Compensation Reform Act of 2004. Specifically, the plaintiffs contested the mandatory benefit review conference, the multiplier used for permanent partial disability benefits, and the reliance on the AMA Guides for anatomical impairment. The trial judge had previously ruled these provisions unconstitutional, citing violations of due process, separation of powers, open courts, and equal protection, as well as the Tennessee Human Rights Act and Tennessee Handicap Act. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, affirming the constitutionality of all challenged provisions. The Court found that these statutory elements serve legitimate state interests in ensuring uniformity, predictability, and cost efficiency within the workers' compensation system, and do not infringe upon the stated constitutional rights or acts.

Workers' CompensationConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionSeparation of PowersOpen Courts DoctrineBenefit Review ConferencePermanent Partial DisabilityAMA GuidesMultiplier Provisions
References
28
Case No. M2009-00915-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2010

John Doe v. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., as Attorney General for State of Tennessee

This case addresses John Doe's constitutional challenge against the retroactive application of the Tennessee Sexual Offender Registration, Verification, and Tracking Act of 2004. Doe, convicted of indecent exposure in 2001, was subsequently classified as a sexual offender under the 2004 Act, leading to mandatory registration and employment restrictions. The trial court upheld the Act's constitutionality, viewing it as a non-punitive regulatory framework. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, ruling that both the registration requirements and the employment restraints, as applied to Doe, were not punitive and therefore did not violate the ex post facto clause of the Tennessee Constitution. The court emphasized the Act's purpose in promoting public safety.

Declaratory JudgmentRetroactive ApplicationSexual Offender RegistrationEx Post Facto LawConstitutional LawEmployment RestrictionsPublic SafetyIndecent ExposureNon-Punitive Regulatory SchemeTennessee Constitution
References
49
Case No. No. E2008-01758-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Tennessee Title Loans, Inc.

The Tennessee Supreme Court heard an interlocutory appeal to determine if the Tennessee Title Pledge Act (TTPA) permits a private right of action by pledgors against title pledge lenders for charging excessive interest and prohibited fees. The trial court initially dismissed the claims, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding such a right. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the TTPA does not explicitly or implicitly create a private right of action. The Court found the TTPA's intent to be regulatory and penal, without legislative support for private enforcement, and concluded that the statute of limitations provision only modifies existing common law actions. The case was remanded to the Hamilton County Circuit Court for remaining claims under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

Private Right of ActionStatutory InterpretationTennessee Title Pledge ActClass ActionConsumer Protection ActInterlocutory AppealMotion to DismissLegislative IntentStatutory ConstructionPredatory Lending
References
34
Case No. 01A01-9707-CH-00339
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1997

Ferrell v. Blue Bird of Tennessee

The plaintiff, Susan Ferrell, appealed the Rutherford County Chancery Court's dismissal of her employment discrimination action against Blue Bird of Tennessee, Inc. on summary judgment. Ferrell alleged that Blue Bird violated the Tennessee Human Rights Act by terminating her and replacing her with a man at a higher salary. Blue Bird claimed it terminated Ferrell due to unsatisfactory communication skills. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Ferrell failed to show Blue Bird's reason was a pretext for discrimination. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Ferrell failed to produce sufficient evidence of discrimination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act.

Employment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTennessee Human Rights ActPretextSex DiscriminationBurden of ProofPrima Facie CaseAppellate ReviewMaterial FactGenuine Issue
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 16,220 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