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

Abels Ex Rel. Hunt v. Genie Industries, Inc.

This case addresses two certified questions from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee concerning the application of Tennessee's statute of limitations. The primary issue is whether the legal disability of "unsound mind" removes the tolling of the statute of limitations upon the appointment of a legal guardian. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the legal disability statute, Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-1-106, continues to toll the statute of limitations for individuals of unsound mind as long as the disability persists, regardless of a legal guardian's appointment. The court further clarified that the "discovery rule" is inapplicable to plaintiffs of unsound mind during the period of their disability. This decision emphasizes that the cause of action remains personal to the plaintiff, and the statute of limitations runs or is tolled based on the plaintiff's individual status.

Legal disabilityStatute of limitationsUnsound mindGuardianshipTolling statuteCertified questionsTort claimsProducts liabilityPersonal injury lawBrain injury
References
32
Case No. 93 CV 4888 (ADS)
Regular Panel Decision

Wenzel v. Nassau County Police Department

The plaintiff, Mary Ann Wenzel, a former Nassau County Police Officer, sued the Nassau County Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging civil rights violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants sought dismissal, claiming the statute of limitations had expired. Wenzel argued for tolling the statute due to insanity under CPLR § 208. Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky recommended against tolling, finding Wenzel capable of protecting her legal rights. District Judge Spatt adopted this recommendation, ruling that Wenzel did not meet the "insanity" criteria for tolling the statute of limitations. Consequently, the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Civil RightsStatute of LimitationsTolling ProvisionInsanity Defense42 U.S.C. Section 1983CPLR Section 208Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissDepression
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed v. Genesco, Inc.

The plaintiff, Joseph Raymond Reed, filed a workmen's compensation suit against Genesco, Inc. after sustaining an eye injury in June 1970. The defendant's motion to dismiss, citing the Statute of Limitations, was granted by the Trial Court. On appeal, the Court examined when the one-year Statute of Limitations begins to run—from the accident date or disability manifestation—and if a $125 payment by the employer for medical expenses tolled the statute. The Court clarified that the statute runs from the date disability manifests and that the employer's payment did toll the statute, but only for one year from the payment date in March 1971. Consequently, the suit filed in October 1972 was deemed barred, and the Trial Judge's decision was affirmed.

Workmen's CompensationStatute of LimitationsTolling StatuteMedical Expense PaymentDisability ManifestationEye InjuryAppellate ReviewTennessee LawAccident DateInjury Date
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bass v. TEXAS ASS'N OF SCHOOL BOARDS

This case addresses the application of the doctrine of misidentification to toll the statute of limitations in a Texas workers' compensation appeal. The central issue is whether a party appealing a workers' compensation board decision, who files suit within the statutory period but initially names an incorrect defendant, can have the statute of limitations tolled if the proper defendant was aware of the lawsuit and not prejudiced by the error. The court reverses a summary judgment granted in favor of Flour Bluff Independent School District (Flour Bluff I.S.D.), holding that the statutory time limit is a general statute of limitations to which common law tolling doctrines can apply. It finds a fact issue exists regarding whether Flour Bluff I.S.D., the correct self-insured employer, received fair notice of the appeal despite Margaret Bass's initial misnaming of the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) as the defendant. The court affirms the summary judgment for TASB as it was the incorrect party.

Workers' Compensation LawStatute of Limitations TollingMisidentification DoctrineCivil ProcedureSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawJudicial PrecedentEmployer LiabilityInsurance Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crowder v. Klopman Mills, A Division of Burlington Industries, Inc.

This worker's compensation claim was dismissed by the trial court, which ruled it was barred by the statute of limitations. The employee argued that the employer's voluntary provision of medical services, specifically a referral to Dr. Kadyk for examination and prescribed medication in September 1980, should have tolled or waived the statute of limitations, even though these services occurred after the lawsuit was filed. The Supreme Court of Tennessee agreed, finding that these actions constituted a waiver of the statute of limitations. The court emphasized that the voluntary furnishing of medical services, whether paid for or not, is sufficient to toll or waive the statute of limitations. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the cause was remanded for a new trial.

Statute of Limitations DefenseEmployer Provided Medical CareTolling of Limitations PeriodWaiver of Statute of LimitationsMedical ReferralPost-Filing TreatmentPermanent Partial DisabilityLight Duty AssignmentNursing ServicesSurgical Wound Care
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bruner v. Knudsen

A longshoreman, injured on a dock, filed both admiralty and civil actions seeking recovery after a workers' compensation settlement. The respondent moved to dismiss these actions, arguing they were barred by the Texas two-year statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches. The central legal issue was whether the statute of limitations was tolled during the pendency of the workers' compensation proceeding. Citing established Texas appellate court precedents, the court concluded that the statute was indeed tolled during that period. Consequently, the respondent's motion to dismiss was denied, allowing the complainant's actions to proceed.

Longshoreman injuryAdmiralty claimCivil claimStatute of limitationsDoctrine of lachesTollingWorkers' compensationTexas lawPersonal injuryMotion to dismiss
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carpenter v. State

James E. Carpenter, a Tennessee Army National Guard member, was injured in 1985. He received federal incapacitation pay and medical expenses, and state Medicaid benefits. His workers' compensation claim, filed in 1987, was dismissed by the Claims Commissioner as time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Carpenter appealed, arguing that these payments tolled the statute or that equitable estoppel applied. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the dismissal, ruling that neither federal nor state benefits qualified as 'voluntary payments of compensation' to toll the statute, and found no affirmative conduct by the state to support equitable estoppel.

Workers' Compensation LawStatute of LimitationsVoluntary Payments of CompensationMedicaid BenefitsEquitable EstoppelFederal BenefitsTennessee National GuardMotor Vehicle AccidentBack and Neck InjuriesState Employee Claim
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirby v. Knoxville News-Sentinel

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her claim for benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Her husband died in 1980, and she received burial expenses but no other compensation. She later filed a workers' compensation claim in 1982, which was dismissed as barred by the one-year statute of limitations, T.C.A. § 50-6-203. The appellant contended that either deferred credits due to the employer or payments from a tort settlement should be considered voluntary payments that toll the statute. The court affirmed the dismissal, clarifying that only payments from the employer or their agent for workers’ compensation liability, not unrelated third-party tort settlements, can toll the statute of limitations.

Statute of LimitationsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsVoluntary PaymentsThird-Party TortSettlementBurial ExpensesAppellate ReviewTolling PeriodEmployer Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 1988

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Warner

In this case, the plaintiff sought to recover premiums for workers' compensation insurance from defendant Jack Warner, associated with Whoopee National Company. Warner disputed his affiliation and moved for dismissal, citing the six-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213) for the action commenced in March 1988, covering the period 1980-1981. The plaintiff countered that 22 part payments made by Warner between 1983 and 1987 served to toll the statute. The IAS court denied Warner's motion for summary judgment, determining that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding Warner's precise role with Whoopee and whether the part payments satisfied the legal criteria to toll the Statute of Limitations, as per precedent requiring an unqualified acknowledgment of debt.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsWorkers' Compensation InsurancePremium RecoveryPart PaymentsTolling Statute of LimitationsTriable Issues of FactContract DisputeAffirmed DecisionCivil Procedure
References
2
Case No. M2013-01465-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2015

Richard Moreno v. City of Clarksville

Richard Moreno sued the City of Clarksville after an accident caused by a falling tree, seeking to toll the statute of limitations under Tennessee Code Annotated § 20-1-119 (comparative fault) and § 9-8-402(b) (Claims Commission Act tolling). The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding the 90-day window was not triggered. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the initial written notice of claim constituted an "original complaint." The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, concluding that the written notice is not an "original complaint" under § 20-1-119 and that § 9-8-402(b) does not apply to toll the statute of limitations for claims against municipalities under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA). Consequently, Moreno's action against the City of Clarksville was deemed time-barred.

Statute of LimitationsComparative FaultGovernmental Tort Liability ActClaims Commission ActMunicipal LiabilityTolling ProvisionPleadingsOriginal ComplaintNotice of ClaimStatutory Interpretation
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 3,408 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