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
Feb 01, 1993

Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter

This case concerns a constitutional challenge to Tennessee's public school funding system, alleging violations of the education clause and equal protection provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. The plaintiffs, small school systems, superintendents, students, and parents, argued that disparities in funding led to unequal educational opportunities. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Tennessee, in this opinion, reversed the Court of Appeals, finding that the statutory funding scheme resulted in constitutionally impermissible disparities in educational opportunities and failed the "rational basis" test under equal protection provisions, despite arguments for local control. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, with the responsibility for fashioning a remedy left to the General Assembly.

Education FundingEqual ProtectionConstitutional LawPublic School SystemSchool Finance ReformDisparity in EducationState Supreme CourtJudicial ReviewLegislative PrerogativeLocal Control
References
42
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bates v. Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System ex rel. Ashley

The plaintiffs, a class of county officials, initiated a class action to determine their rights under various Tennessee General Assembly enactments concerning retirement systems. The core of the dispute revolved around whether county officials could accrue dual pension benefits from both local and the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System, particularly in light of acts passed in 1972, 1973, and 1975. The Chancellor's decree, which was largely affirmed by the appellate court, found Sections 5 and 6 of the 1975 act unconstitutional but upheld Section 1, prohibiting dual public retirement system membership for the same service. The appellate court clarified that the 1973 act allowed for the transfer, not duplication, of pension rights, concluding that plaintiffs could not legally acquire dual benefits even if misled by public officials. While the decision affirmed the refund of monies erroneously paid by plaintiffs, it left open the question of their privilege to elect between available pension systems.

Public Employee RetirementPension RightsVested RightsStatutory InterpretationRetroactive LegislationClass ActionConstitutional LawDue ProcessDual BenefitsSuperseded Systems
References
1
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. 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. No. 85209 / Appeal No. 01A01-9804-BC-00196
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 1998

Scott Graham Hartman, Kay Hartment, his mother and duly qualified conservator and guardian, and Cleon Hartman v. The University of Tennessee, and The State of Tennessee

This case involves an appeal from the Tennessee Claims Commission concerning a student athlete who sustained a catastrophic injury during a track and field competition. Scott Graham Hartman, Kay Hartman, and Cleon Hartman, the claimants/appellants, sought to recover medical expenses and damages for negligence from The University of Tennessee and The State of Tennessee. The University had a scholarship contract obligating it to provide treatment, and various insurers paid significant medical costs. Appellants argued for subrogation rights on behalf of the insurers, despite the insurers not being parties to the lawsuit, and challenged the Commission's denial of their claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's decision, finding no legal basis for the appellants to claim expenses they had not paid, nor for their subrogation arguments without the insurers being proper parties. A subsequent petition for rehearing was also denied.

Student athlete injuryCatastrophic injuryScholarship contractSubrogation rightsInsurance reimbursementMedical expensesTennessee Claims CommissionAppellate reviewReal party in interestNegligence claim
References
4
Case No. 01-10-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2011

Microcheck Systems. Inc v. Microcheck Systems, Inc., Chris Zigrossi, Scott Murphy, Mike Smith, Individually and D/B/A CMS Technology AKA CMS Technologies, Michoice Technology Systems, Inc., Jim Hayden, Alex Campbell and Jason Jablecki

Appellants MicroCheck Systems, Inc., MicroCheck Solutions, Inc., and John Manning challenged the trial court's denial of their motion to reinstate a case dismissed for want of prosecution. Their attorney, Scarlett May, failed to appear at a docket call due to a mistaken belief that she had been replaced by new counsel, Patrick Hubbard. The trial court denied the motion, stating a policy against missing docket calls. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by not applying the correct legal standard, which requires reinstatement if the failure to appear was due to accident or mistake and not conscious indifference. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case.

Dismissal for Want of ProsecutionMotion to ReinstateAbuse of DiscretionAttorney ErrorMistake of CounselConscious IndifferenceTexas Rules of Civil Procedure 165aAppellate ReviewSubstitution of CounselTrial Court Discretion
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manis v. AMERICAN CABLE SYSTEMS OF TENNESSEE

This is a personal injury action where an employee of Telecom Systems, Inc. was injured by an electrical shock while working on a utility pole, stringing cable lines for American Cable Systems of Tennessee (ACS). The plaintiff seeks relief based on alleged negligence, but ACS argues it was a 'principal contractor' in its relationship with Telecom, making it immune from a tort suit under Tennessee worker's compensation law (T.C.A. § 50-6-113). The Court reconsidered the case in light of Stratton v. United Inter-Mountain Telephone Co. (695 S.W.2d 947), which clarified the 'right to control' test for principal contractor status. Upon comparison, the Court found that ACS maintained pervasive overall control over materials, employees, and general work manner, similar to the principal contractor in Stratton. Therefore, ACS was deemed a principal contractor, protecting it from third-party liability, and the motion for summary judgment was granted in its favor.

Personal InjuryWorker's CompensationPrincipal ContractorSubcontractorImmunitySummary JudgmentRight to ControlNegligenceElectrical ShockUtility Pole
References
5
Case No. E2009-00016-CCA-R3-PD
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2011

Christa Gail Pike v. State of Tennessee

Christa Gail Pike appealed the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief, following convictions for premeditated first-degree murder and conspiracy. She alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, citing conflicts of interest related to a billing investigation and media rights, and deficiencies in presenting mitigation evidence of brain damage and bipolar disorder. Pike also challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty for 'older adolescents who are cognitively impaired' and Tennessee's capital sentencing system. The appellate court affirmed the post-conviction court's judgment, finding no actual conflict of interest or prejudice from counsel's performance, and declined to establish a new categorical bar for the death penalty based on age and mental health beyond existing legal precedents.

Post-conviction reliefIneffective assistance of counselDeath penaltyConstitutional lawConflict of interestMental illness defenseBrain damageJuvenile sentencingVoir direMitigating circumstances
References
82
Case No. E2003-00432-WC-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Bryant v. BAPTIST HEALTH SYSTEM HOME CARE

Patricia Bryant, a home-health nursing assistant, suffered two work-related back injuries in 1997 while working for Baptist Health System Home Care of East Tennessee. After leaving employment, she filed for workers' compensation benefits. During a deposition in 1998, Bryant falsely testified she had not worked since leaving Baptist. Upon discovery, Baptist filed a counterclaim under the Workers’ Compensation Fraud Act. The trial court dismissed Baptist's counterclaim, finding no prejudice or fraudulent insurance act, and awarded Bryant 22.5% permanent partial disability benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the counterclaim, ruling that Baptist, as a self-insured employer, did not fit the 'insurer' definition under the Fraud Act, and affirmed the disability award, deferring to the trial court's credibility assessment of Bryant despite her false testimony.

Workers' Compensation FraudFalse TestimonyPermanent Partial Disability BenefitsMedical Impairment RatingNeurosurgeon OpinionSelf-Insured Employer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate Court ReviewCredibility AssessmentBack Injury Claim
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 7,399 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