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. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

Gerard Matzen// Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office v. Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office// Cross-Appellee, Gerard Matzen

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
Case No. 2022-05-1109
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2023

Baugus, Alice v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company

The employee, Alice Baugus, sought to set aside an order approving the settlement of her workers' compensation claim, arguing she lacked the emotional or mental capacity to enter the agreement due to severe stress, anxiety, and medication. The trial court, Dale A. Tipps, denied her motion, concluding she failed to provide grounds for relief by clear and convincing evidence under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. On appeal, the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision. The Board emphasized that relief under Rule 60.02 is a rare and disfavored "exceptional remedy" for "extreme, unique, exceptional, or extraordinary cases" and is not intended for situations where circumstances change or a party is merely dissatisfied with an outcome, unless clear and convincing evidence of a Rule 60.02 condition is presented. The Appeals Board found the employee did not meet this burden.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementMental CapacityRule 60.02Abuse of DiscretionImpairment RatingCarpal Tunnel SyndromeAppeals BoardClear and Convincing EvidenceFinality of Judgment
References
3
Case No. M2008-01845-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2009

Thomas & Associates, Inc. v. Tennessee American Contractors, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning the imposition of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 11 sanctions against Tennessee American Contractors, Inc. (TAC) and its attorneys. The trial court had sanctioned TAC for failing to dismiss a counterclaim against Thomas & Associates, Inc. (Thomas), determining that the counterclaim lacked factual or legal basis. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, concluding that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard by evaluating the conduct with hindsight rather than the circumstances existing at the time the counterclaim was signed. The appellate court also clarified that Rule 11 does not impose a continuing duty to reevaluate or voluntarily dismiss a pleading once filed. Furthermore, it highlighted the injured party's duty to mitigate damages by pursuing less expensive alternatives than proceeding to trial for allegedly frivolous claims.

Rule 11 SanctionsCivil ProcedureAbuse of DiscretionObjective Reasonableness StandardHindsight EvaluationContinuing DutyCounterclaim DismissalBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceDefamation
References
22
Case No. 2015-06-0288
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2016

Syph, Deborah v. Choice Food Group, Inc.

The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Deborah Syph's workers' compensation claim against Choice Food Group, Inc. Syph alleged a back injury from work, but the employer disputed causation due to a pre-existing condition, and a medical examiner found no link. The trial court initially denied benefits and later granted the employer's motion to dismiss with prejudice when Syph failed to respond or appear. The Appeals Board concluded that Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure govern such dismissal motions and affirmed based on the employee's procedural failures. This decision clarified the application of civil procedure rules in workers' compensation claims in Tennessee.

Dismissal with PrejudiceExpedited HearingMedical CausationFailure to ProsecuteTennessee Rules of Civil ProcedureAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentCompensability GroundsEvidentiary InadequaciesPre-existing Condition
References
25
Case No. W2015-00673-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2016

State of Tennessee v. Carolyn Tillilie

This case involves Carolyn Tillilie's appeal of a Fayette County Circuit Court order mandating a $27,000 security bond for the care of three horses, following cruelty charges. The core legal question revolves around appellate subject matter jurisdiction: whether the bond and abandonment provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-210(g)(2) constitute a civil matter or part of criminal procedure. The Court of Appeals, having been transferred the case back from the Court of Criminal Appeals, determined that these provisions are integral to criminal procedure, not a distinct civil forfeiture. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Animal CrueltyHorse WelfareSecurity BondForfeiture LawAppellate JurisdictionCriminal ProcedureCivil ProcedureDue ProcessStatutory InterpretationAbandonment of Property
References
13
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. M2013-00904-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2014

Old Republic Insurance Company v. State of Tennessee

Five Pennsylvania-domiciled insurance companies challenged Tennessee's imposition of retaliatory insurance premium taxes. The core issue was whether Pennsylvania's surcharges for three Workmen's Compensation funds (Administration, Subsequent Injury, and Supersedeas) applied to Tennessee-domiciled insurers in Pennsylvania, thereby triggering Tennessee's retaliatory tax statute. The Tennessee Claims Commission ruled for the state, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The court found that Pennsylvania law indeed imposes these surcharges on insurers, creating a heavier burden on Tennessee companies and justifying the retaliatory tax. The court also rejected arguments concerning due process, the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, Full Faith and Credit, Equal Protection, Commerce Clause, and Uniformity Clause violations.

Retaliatory TaxInsurance Premium TaxWorkers' Compensation FundsStatutory InterpretationInterstate CommerceConstitutional LawState Tax LawInsurance RegulationTax RefundsImplied Repeal Doctrine
References
33
Case No. M2022-00553-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2024

Robert E. Lee Flade v. City of Shelbyville, Tennessee

This case examines the intersection of the rule governing voluntary dismissal of civil actions (Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01) and the statutory scheme of the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA). Robert E. Lee Flade filed suit against the City of Shelbyville, Stephanie Isaacs, and the Bedford County Listening Project (BCLP) over alleged disparaging remarks on social media. Isaacs and BCLP filed motions to dismiss and petitions under the TPPA. Before a hearing, Flade voluntarily nonsuited his complaint, leading to an order of dismissal without prejudice, which prompted the defendants to seek adjudication of their TPPA petitions. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the lower courts' decisions, concluding that the mere filing of a TPPA petition does not limit a plaintiff's right to voluntary nonsuit, create a vested right for adjudication, or qualify as a counterclaim under Rule 41.01(1).

Voluntary NonsuitTennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA)Anti-SLAPP StatuteCivil Procedure Rule 41.01Vested Rights ExceptionCounterclaimAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationConstitutional RightsFree Speech
References
59
Case No. M2019-00413-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2020

The Electric Employees' Civil Service and Pension Board of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee v. Brian Mansell

This appeal concerns the termination of Brian Mansell, an NES cable splicer/working foreman, by the Electric Employees’ Civil Service and Pension Board for allegedly approving fraudulent timesheets. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found insufficient evidence of knowing misconduct and recommended Mansell's reinstatement without back pay, citing a lack of training, absence of responsibility to verify timesheets, and common practice of rounding hours. The Board rejected the ALJ's recommendation and upheld the termination without issuing its own factual findings. The trial court reversed the Board's decision, adopting the ALJ's report and ordering Mansell's reinstatement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious due to its failure to make specific findings of fact and its disregard for the ALJ's well-supported findings.

Employment TerminationFraudulent TimesheetsAdministrative Law JudgeJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationBoard DecisionEmployee ReinstatementArbitrary and CapriciousMetro Charter
References
19
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
Showing 1-10 of 15,242 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