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. M2015-01488-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2016

The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County v. The Civil Service Commission of The Metropolitan Government of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee

An officer with the Davidson County Sheriff's Department, Jerry Clark, was terminated for dishonesty after filing reports alleging he was attacked during training, which an investigation found to be exaggerated. An administrative law judge initially ordered his reinstatement with a ten-day suspension, a decision adopted by the Civil Service Commission. However, the Metropolitan Government sought judicial review, and the chancery court reversed the Commission's decision, finding it unsupported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancery court's ruling, concluding that the ALJ's findings were not backed by material evidence and remanded the case to the Commission for a determination of appropriate disciplinary action.

Police MisconductTermination of EmploymentDishonestyAdministrative ReviewJudicial PrecedentCivil Service LawSubstantial Evidence RuleWorkers' Compensation ClaimsRetaliation AllegationsDue Process Rights
References
7
Case No. 01-A-01-9707-CH-00354; 96-1250-I
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 1998

Edith Stromatt v. The Metropolitan Employee Benefit Board of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee

Edith Stromatt, a former employee of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville, sought an in-line-of-duty (IOD) disability pension, having already been granted a medical disability pension. She sued the Metropolitan Employee Benefit Board, claiming an erroneous denial of the IOD pension and a violation of her constitutional right to due process. The trial court upheld the Board's decision. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed, ruling that Stromatt did not have a vested property interest in the IOD pension before it was granted and that the Board's denial was supported by material evidence, noting her disability was not from a specific incident of stress as required for an IOD pension.

Disability PensionIn-Line-of-Duty PensionMedical DisabilityDue Process ViolationProperty InterestAdministrative ReviewWrit of CertiorariStress-Related DisabilityEmployment BenefitsMetropolitan Government
References
17
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. M2015-00455-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2016

John P. Branham v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville - Davidson County, Tennessee

Landowner John P. Branham sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville-Davidson County for damages to his property caused by landslides, alleging inverse condemnation, detrimental reliance, and negligence. The trial court initially ruled in favor of Metro on all claims and held that Metro owned the land adjacent to Branham's property. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the finding of Metro's ownership, determining that Metro only possessed a right-of-way easement. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding the claims of inverse condemnation and negligence, concluding that the primary cause of the landslides was a 2010 rainfall event, not Metro's actions, and no competent proof of diminution in value was presented.

inverse condemnationdetrimental reliancenegligencelandslidesproperty damageright-of-wayeasementexpert witness credibilityproperty valuationappellate review
References
22
Case No. M2008-02060-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2010

Dalton Reb Hughes and wife, Sandra Hines Hughes v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee

A Metro public works employee, Frank Archey, injured Dalton Reb Hughes, a Metro fire department employee, by negligently operating a front end loader. The incident, caused by a loud noise from the equipment, led Hughes to fall over a guardrail. Hughes sued Metro, which responded with a cross-claim against Archey and a counterclaim against Hughes for subrogation of payments. The trial court found Archey's actions negligent and within the scope of his employment, lifting Metro's immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act. It awarded Hughes $250,000, offset by $104,658.57 already paid by Metro. Metro appealed, arguing Archey acted intentionally and outside the scope of employment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, agreeing that Archey's conduct was negligent and that the tort of assault in Tennessee requires an intent to harm, which was not established in this case.

Governmental Tort Liability ActScope of EmploymentNegligenceIntentional TortAssaultHorseplayPublic Employee LiabilityMotor Vehicle OperationPersonal InjuryMunicipal Immunity
References
32
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. 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
Case No. M2012-00341-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2013

Martin D. Red Patterson, as a Citizen of the State of Tennessee, and as Business Manager of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 369 v. The Convention Center Authority of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson Co.

This case addresses whether the residential addresses of employees of third-party contractors, found in payroll records submitted to the Convention Center Authority (CCA), are exempt from disclosure under the Tennessee Public Records Act (TPRA). Petitioners, Martin D. Patterson and Wayne Wells, sought these records to investigate compliance with prevailing wage laws and local hiring commitments for a public construction project. The CCA had redacted employee home addresses and social security numbers, citing privacy rights and exemptions under state and federal law. The trial court ruled that home addresses were not exempt and ordered their disclosure, though it denied attorney's fees to the petitioners. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the TPRA does not explicitly or implicitly exempt such addresses from disclosure, and federal FOIA balancing tests are not applicable to the TPRA's framework. The appellate court further upheld the denial of attorney's fees, acknowledging the CCA's good faith in resisting disclosure.

Public Records ActEmployee PrivacyStatutory InterpretationGovernment ContractsPrevailing WageDisclosure LawsAppellate DecisionTennessee LawFOIA ComparisonAttorney Fee Discretion
References
39
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,596 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