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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Petitioner, a Pennsylvania corporation selling adjustable beds, challenged a sales and use tax assessment for the period of March 1978 to February 1981. The corporation argued that sales of its beds, when prescribed by a physician, should be exempt as medical equipment under Tax Law § 1115 (a) (3). The respondent's determination disallowed this exemption, claiming the beds were not primarily used for medical purposes. The court, however, found the respondent's decision lacked substantial evidence, citing approvals from the Workers’ Compensation Board, Medicare, and the FDA, all of which classified the beds as medical devices or hospital beds. Consequently, the court annulled the portion of the determination denying the exemption for prescription sales and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Sales TaxUse TaxMedical Equipment ExemptionHospital BedsPhysician's PrescriptionSubstantial EvidenceTax LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewTax Assessment
References
5
Case No. M2013-00885-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2015

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case addresses whether certain Pennsylvania workers’ compensation assessments trigger Tennessee’s retaliatory tax statute against Pennsylvania insurance companies operating in Tennessee. Five groups of Pennsylvania-domiciled insurance companies sought refunds of over $16 million in retaliatory taxes paid under protest. The Tennessee Claims Commission and the Court of Appeals upheld the State's imposition of these taxes. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, ruling that recent Pennsylvania statutory amendments (71 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 578) and administrative regulations shifted the direct financial burden of these assessments from insurance companies to employer-policyholders. The Court concluded that the insurance companies' role is merely administrative, involving the collection and remittance of payments, which does not constitute a direct financial burden sufficient to activate Tennessee's retaliatory tax law. Therefore, the retaliatory taxes were improperly imposed.

Retaliatory TaxInsurance LawWorkers' Compensation AssessmentsStatutory InterpretationPennsylvania LawTennessee LawTax RefundsAppellate ReviewLegislative IntentAdministrative Regulations
References
29
Case No. M2013-00897-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2014

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case concerns Valley Forge Insurance Company's appeal against the State of Tennessee regarding the imposition of retaliatory insurance premium taxes. Valley Forge, along with other Pennsylvania-domiciled insurance companies, challenged these taxes, arguing that Pennsylvania's surcharges for three Workmen's Compensation funds are not imposed on Tennessee-domiciled insurance companies. The Tennessee Claims Commission ruled in favor of the state, a decision which the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed. The core issue revolves around whether certain Pennsylvania workers' compensation surcharges fall under Tennessee's retaliatory insurance premium tax statute. The court found that the surcharges are indeed imposed on insurance companies, not policyholders, and upheld the application of the retaliatory tax, rejecting arguments of due process, UAPA, full faith and credit, equal protection, and commerce clause violations.

Insurance Premium TaxRetaliatory TaxWorkers' Compensation SurchargesPennsylvania LawStatutory InterpretationEqual Protection ClauseFull Faith and Credit ClauseCommerce ClauseDue ProcessSummary Judgment
References
24
Case No. M2013-00898-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2014

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case addresses an appeal by American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, and other Pennsylvania-domiciled insurance companies, challenging retaliatory insurance premium taxes imposed by the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance. The core issue revolves around whether Pennsylvania's surcharges for three specific Workers' Compensation funds are imposed upon Tennessee-domiciled insurance companies doing business in Pennsylvania, thereby triggering Tennessee's retaliatory tax statute. The Tennessee Claims Commission ruled in favor of the State, and the insurance companies appealed. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the Claims Commission's decision, concluding that the Pennsylvania surcharges constitute a burden on insurance companies and that the imposition of Tennessee's retaliatory tax is constitutional and proper, rejecting arguments related to due process, UAPA, Full Faith and Credit, Equal Protection, Commerce Clause, and Uniformity Clause.

Retaliatory TaxInsurance Premium TaxPennsylvania Workers' CompensationTennessee LawStatutory InterpretationInterstate CommerceDue ProcessUniform Administrative Procedures ActFull Faith and CreditEqual Protection Clause
References
24
Case No. M2013-00904-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2014

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

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. M2003-00300-SC-WCM-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2005

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This workers' compensation case addresses whether 'nursing services' under Tennessee law include care provided by an injured employee's spouse if the spouse is a certified nurse technician. The Supreme Court of Tennessee held that care provided by a certified nurse technician is compensable under the Workers' Compensation Law, regardless of the caregiver's relationship to the employee, provided it is reasonably necessary and pursuant to physician's orders. The court reversed the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel's decision on this issue and remanded for a determination of the value of Mrs. Long's nursing services. The court affirmed the lower court's decisions regarding the employee's claims for temporary total disability, injury to the body as a whole, and the limitation of the award to 40% of the foot.

Workers' CompensationNursing ServicesCertified Nurse TechnicianSpousal CareMedical BenefitsHome Health CareImpairment RatingVocational DisabilityScheduled InjuryUnscheduled Injury
References
12
Case No. M2013-00872-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2014

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case concerns an appeal by Zurich American Insurance Company and American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company challenging Tennessee's calculation of retaliatory tax on foreign insurance companies. The insurance companies disputed the inclusion of six New York workers’ compensation surcharges in the tax calculation, arguing they were passed on to policyholders and not directly imposed on the insurers. The Tennessee Claims Commission initially ruled in favor of the state. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee found that four of the six surcharges should be included in the retaliatory tax calculation, while two (Fire Insurance Fee and Motor Vehicle Law Enforcement/Theft Fund Charges) should not, as they constituted a direct "pass-through" to policyholders. The court also rejected the claimants' constitutional challenges based on due process, Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, Full Faith and Credit, Equal Protection, Commerce Clause, and Uniformity Clause.

Retaliatory TaxInsurance TaxationWorkers' Compensation SurchargesStatutory InterpretationTax Refund ClaimsConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual Protection ClauseFull Faith and CreditCommerce Clause
References
32
Case No. CV-24-1494
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2026

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Petitioner, Beeline.Com, Inc., a Florida company, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the New York Tax Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld a sales tax assessment imposed by the Department of Taxation and Finance on Beeline.Com's vendor management system (VMS), deeming it a sale of licenses to use prewritten computer software under Tax Law article 28. Beeline.Com argued it primarily provided nontaxable services and its software was customized, not prewritten. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Tribunal's determination, finding that the VMS license constituted a sale of tangible personal property, was prewritten software despite minor reconfigurations, and was the core element of Beeline.Com's transactions, not incidental to services.

Sales TaxComputer Software LicensePrewritten SoftwareTax Appeals TribunalCPLR Article 78Vendor Management System (VMS)Tangible Personal PropertyTrue Object TestPrimary Function TestTax Law Article 28
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This proceeding reviewed a determination by the State Tax Commission that a sales representative for Gravely Furniture Company, Inc. was subject to unincorporated business taxes for multiple years (1967-1973). The Commission found no employer-employee relationship due to insufficient direction and control by Gravely over the petitioner's activities. The court affirmed this determination, concluding there was substantial evidence, noting the petitioner was compensated on commission, not covered by workers' compensation or company pension, filed Federal Schedule 'C', paid self-employment taxes, and hired another sales representative. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

Unincorporated Business TaxTax LawSales RepresentativeEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorState Tax CommissionCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCommission-based Compensation
References
2
Case No. M2003-00585-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2004

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The State of Tennessee appealed a Claims Commission decision that found Crew One Productions, Inc. was exempt from state employment tax under a federal safe harbor provision, Section 530. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that Tennessee's Employment Security Law, though to be construed in pari materia with federal law, does not mandate the adoption of every federal relief provision, especially those not codified as part of the Internal Revenue Code. The court concluded that Tennessee is not bound by federal Section 530 determinations and reinstated the Department of Labor and Workforce Development's assessment of employment taxes against Crew One.

Employment TaxIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationFederal Safe HarborSection 530Statutory InterpretationState Employment LawTennesseeTax LiabilityAppellate Review
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 2,870 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