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. 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. 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. 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. M2012-02249-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2014

Heather Michele Cohen and Adam Cohen v. Trisha Clarke and Michelle Julian

Heather Michele Cohen and Adam Lee Cohen appealed the trial court's dismissal of their defamation lawsuit against Trisha Clarke and Michelle Julian. The trial court had granted motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) and for discovery abuses under Rule 41.02, citing ex parte communication and subpoena violations. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred by dismissing the case while a motion to amend was pending and by imposing the severe sanction of dismissal for procedural violations without sufficient explanation or consideration of lesser alternatives. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Defamation LawsuitProcedural DismissalDiscovery SanctionsEx Parte CommunicationsFailure to State a ClaimMotion to AmendAbuse of Discretion ReviewAppellate ProcedurePro Se RepresentationCivil Procedure Rules
References
29
Case No. 2015-07-0143
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2017

Wilson, Bradley v. Dana Holding Corporation

Bradley Wilson, an employee of Dana Holding Corporation, alleged a bilateral carpal tunnel injury due to repetitive work as a press operator. He notified Dana of his injury and sought workers' compensation. Dana denied the claim and later filed a motion for involuntary dismissal, arguing Mr. Wilson failed to provide expert medical proof that his employment caused his injury. The Court agreed, finding Mr. Wilson did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his injury arose primarily out of his employment and lacked sufficient medical causation evidence. Consequently, the Court granted Dana's motion for involuntary dismissal, dismissing Mr. Wilson's case with prejudice. The Court also reserved ruling on Dana's request for repayment of temporary disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeMedical CausationInvoluntary DismissalBurden of ProofExpert Medical TestimonyAttendance Policy ViolationTemporary Total DisabilityMaximum Medical ImprovementTennessee Law
References
5
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. 68533-2014
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2016

Harris, Zechariah v. Subwau

Zechariah Harris, an employee, filed a petition for benefit determination after claiming a spider bite injury at Subway, which denied the claim. Harris was consistently lax in pursuing his claim, failing to file requests for hearings, provide HIPAA releases, and respond to discovery requests despite multiple court orders. He also failed to appear at crucial telephonic hearings. Consequently, the employer, Subway, filed a Motion to Dismiss. The Court granted Subway's motion, dismissing Mr. Harris’s claim with prejudice due to his repeated failure to comply with court orders and prosecute his claim, referencing Rules 37.02 and 41.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

Workers' CompensationMotion to DismissFailure to ProsecuteDiscovery SanctionsTennessee Rules of Civil ProcedureCellulitisSpider BiteEmployee MisconductPre-trial ProceduresOrder Violation
References
1
Case No. M2015-02217-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2016

Deborah Lacy v. HCA Tristar Hendersonville Hospital

This appeal concerns Deborah Lacy's case following an involuntary dismissal under Rule 41.02(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Lacy, a pro se litigant, sued Hendersonville Hospital Corporation and its employees for assault and battery during her employment. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to the Hospital, finding the Workers' Compensation Law as Lacy's sole remedy. Following the close of Lacy's proof, the remaining defendants moved for involuntary dismissal, which was granted due to a lack of evidence for damages. The Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal and remanded the case, citing the trial court's failure to make specific findings of fact and to approve a statement of the evidence as required by appellate rules.

Involuntary DismissalPro Se LitigantAppellate ProcedureStatement of EvidenceFactual FindingsRemandAssault and BatteryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentCausation and Damages
References
7
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. E2018-02134-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2019

Kristin Marie Miclaus v. Andrei Miclaus

This case involves an appeal from the Probate Court for Cumberland County. The appellant, Andrei Miclaus (Father), appealed the trial court's denial of his Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 motion. This motion sought relief from a final decree of divorce, arguing he did not receive proper notice of the trial setting. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville determined that the appellant did not receive proper notice, therefore concluding that relief under Rule 60.02(1) should have been granted. The appellate court vacated the final decree of divorce and remanded the case for further proceedings.

DivorceChild SupportSpousal SupportMarital EstatePermanent Parenting PlanNotice of TrialDue ProcessRule 60.02Excusable NeglectMeritorious Defense
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 15,660 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