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. E2003-01966-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2004

Gwinn Fayne v. Teresa Vincent

Purchasers Gwinn and Alfred Fayne sued sellers Teresa and David Vincent and Re/Max Real Estate Professionals, seeking rescission for tortious misrepresentation and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act regarding a defective septic system. The trial court rescinded the transaction but dismissed Re/Max, finding its salesperson, Teresa Vincent, was an independent contractor. On appeal, the Court affirmed the independent contractor finding for Re/Max. However, it modified the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to properly place the parties in their pre-transaction status quo regarding expenses and for reconsideration of the purchasers' attorney's fees, depending on the basis of the rescission.

Real Property LawRescission of ContractTortious MisrepresentationTennessee Consumer Protection ActIndependent Contractor vs. AgentAttorney's FeesEquitable RemediesStatus Quo AnteSeptic System FailureReal Estate Litigation
References
13
Case No. M2020-00880-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2021

Teresa McCain v. Saint Thomas Medical Partners

Plaintiff Teresa McCain, a Licensed Practical Nurse, sued her employer, Saint Thomas Medical Partners, alleging sexual harassment, hostile work environment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and vicarious liability under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant on all claims, ruling that most claims were time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The court found that the "continuing violation doctrine" did not apply as the alleged reassignment was a discrete act and no hostile actions occurred within the limitations period. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of all claims, concluding that the hostile work environment and retaliation claims were time-barred, and thus, the constructive discharge claim lacked a viable underlying cause of action.

Tennessee Human Rights ActSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationConstructive DischargeStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDiscrete ActsContinuing Violation Doctrine
References
37
Case No. 2008-01939-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2010

Teresa Gard v. Dennis Harris, M.D.

Teresa Gard filed a complaint against Dennis Harris, M.D., and HealthStar Physicians, P.C., alleging false light invasion of privacy and defamation. The claims arose after Dr. Harris sent a letter concerning Ms. Gard's medical condition, which she considered defamatory, to several parties involved in her workers' compensation case. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that Ms. Gard had consented to the disclosure by signing a consent form. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Dr. Harris's disclosure of Ms. Gard's protected health information was permissible under HIPAA for treatment purposes and did not exceed the scope of her consent, thereby barring her claims.

DefamationFalse Light Invasion of PrivacyMedical ConfidentialityHIPAASummary JudgmentConsentPhysician-Patient RelationshipWorkers' Compensation ClaimProtected Health InformationAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. E2015-00908-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2016

Jason Lamar Howard v. Cynthia Teresa Wallin Howard

The Father, Jason Lamar Howard, appealed the trial court's modification of a permanent parenting plan, child support, and its refusal to hold the Mother, Cynthia Teresa Wallin Howard, in contempt. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision regarding criminal contempt. However, it vacated and remanded the issues concerning the parenting plan and civil contempt due to insufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law by the trial court. The appellate court found that the Father had adequate notice of the Mother's intent to seek an increase in parenting time. The case is remanded for the trial court to provide a complete parenting plan with sufficient findings and conclusions for both the parenting plan and the civil contempt petition.

Post-divorceParenting plan modificationChild supportContempt of courtDue processFindings of factConclusions of lawAppellate reviewRemandTennessee law
References
15
Case No. 02-22-00336-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2024

Boxer Property Management Corporation v. Teresa R. Dehnel

Teresa R. Dehnel sued Boxer Property Management Corporation for age and sex discrimination and retaliation after her termination. A jury found retaliation and awarded back pay, noneconomic, and exemplary damages. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's findings on retaliation and noneconomic damages. However, it reversed the exemplary damages due to a non-unanimous verdict and remanded the attorney's fees for recalculation.

RetaliationEmployment LawDiscriminationWrongful TerminationJury VerdictBack PayExemplary DamagesAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewCausation
References
9
Case No. 07-22-00129-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2023

Teresa Von Illyes v. Cary Rolfing, Laura Rolfing, and Kenneth Rolfing

Teresa Von Illyes appealed a jury verdict and judgment in favor of the Rolfings regarding claims from a home remodel project. The Rolfings had sued Von Illyes, John Barton, and Clearfork General Construction for breach of contract and deceptive trade practices, with Von Illyes counterclaiming for nonpayment and quantum meruit. The jury found Clearfork breached the contract and awarded damages to the Rolfings. On appeal, Von Illyes challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the damages. The Court of Appeals sustained Von Illyes's challenges regarding the "benefit of the bargain" and "cost to repair" damages, reversing the trial court’s judgment on these awards and rendering a take-nothing judgment for the Rolfings on those claims. However, the court affirmed the jury's decision against Von Illyes's quantum meruit claim.

Contract DisputeHome RenovationBreach of ContractDeceptive Trade PracticesQuantum MeruitDamages AppealLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyJury VerdictMechanic's Lien
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patino v. Complete Tire, Inc.

Reynaldo C. Patino, an employee of Complete Tire, Inc., was injured while working and subsequently terminated. He filed a negligence lawsuit against Complete Tire, Inc., alleging inadequate training and supervision, leading to his injury. The trial court granted a no-evidence summary judgment in favor of Complete Tire, Inc., and also imposed discovery sanctions against Patino for insufficient responses. On appeal, Patino challenged both rulings, arguing the summary judgment was improper and the sanctions were an abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding Patino failed to produce sufficient evidence to support his negligence claims and that the sanctions were justified.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsWorkers' Compensation NonsubscriberEmployer DutyWorkplace SafetyStandard of CareCausationAbuse of DiscretionTexas Civil Procedure
References
13
Case No. 13-00-411-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2001

Cullen Plumbing, Inc., D/B/A Cullen Pools, Inc. and Greg Cullen D/B/A Cullen Pools, Inc. v. Mark Duncan and Teresa Duncan

This case concerns an appeal from a default judgment against Cullen Plumbing, Inc., d/b/a Cullen Pools, Inc., and Greg Cullen, d/b/a Cullen Pools, Inc., brought by Mark and Teresa Duncan due to cracking in a pool deck. The appellate court affirmed the default judgment against Greg Cullen individually, finding strict compliance with service rules and evidence of conscious indifference regarding his failure to answer. However, the court reversed and remanded the judgment against Cullen Plumbing, Inc., d/b/a Cullen Pools, Inc., because the record did not demonstrate strict compliance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 107 regarding substitute service, specifically the lack of reflection that service occurred at the court-ordered address.

Default JudgmentService of ProcessTexas Civil ProcedureSubstitute ServiceAppellate ReviewMotion for New TrialConscious IndifferenceCraddock TestJurisdictionDue Process
References
5
Case No. 14-18-00274-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2020

Dr. Louis Patino, D.C. Dr. Stephen Wilson, M.D. And Dr. Gary Craighead, D.C. v. Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers' Compensation Commissioner Cassandra J. Brown and Dr. Donald Patrick, in Their Official and Individual Capacities State Office of Administrative Hearings, Texas Chief Administrative Law Judge Cathleen Parsley in Her Official Capacity Tommy Broyles, in His Official Capacity The State of Texas And the Attorney General of the State of Texas

Three doctors, Patino, Wilson, and Craighead, appealed the dismissal of their claims against the Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers’ Compensation and other state entities. The doctors were excluded from the state's workers' compensation approved doctor list between 2004 and 2007, leading to administrative penalties and a subsequent lawsuit. The trial court dismissed their claims for lack of jurisdiction, asserting immunity. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims challenging final agency orders due to unexhausted administrative remedies and collateral attack immunity. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the doctors' constitutional challenges to the Workers’ Compensation Act and ultra vires claims against the Commissioner, concluding these claims were properly pleaded and not barred by sovereign immunity.

Physician ExclusionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsConstitutional ChallengeDue Process RightsProfessional LicensingGovernment RegulationTexas Labor Code
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2002

Saunders v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning a proceeding under CPLR article 78. The petition was granted to the extent of enjoining the respondent from appointing temporary employees in disregard of Civil Service Law § 64 (1) and directing an amendment to its policy regarding Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) to include part-time employees. However, the application for lost wages and benefits on behalf of petitioner Patino was denied. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, stating that the injunctive relief was properly granted as the respondent failed to articulate an important need for open-ended temporary employment consistent with Civil Service Law. The court also rejected the argument that Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) applies only to full-time employees, affirming that no hearing was required for Patino's termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Temporary EmployeesCivil Service LawInjunctive ReliefPart-time EmployeesLost WagesCollective Bargaining AgreementsTerminationPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 114 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