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

Environmental Abatement, Inc. v. Astrum R.E. Corp.

This case addresses whether a settlement judge can enter a consent decree when a party withdraws its consent to an oral agreement reached during a judicial settlement conference. Mahan Roofing and Sheet Metal Company, Inc. (Mahan) appealed after a settlement judge entered a compromise and settlement order despite Mahan's explicit withdrawal of consent. The appellate court found that the oral agreement was not made 'on the record' or 'in open court,' thus allowing Mahan to withdraw its assent. Furthermore, the court determined that the settlement judge, acting as a dispute resolution neutral under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 31, lacked the authority to enter a dispositive order. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, vacated the Order of Compromise and Settlement, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Consent DecreeOral AgreementSettlement ConferenceWithdrawal of ConsentJudicial AuthorityAppellate ReviewContract LawCivil ProcedureLocal RulesMediation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Johansson

Karl Johansson, the appellee, sustained a job-related injury and subsequently filed a worker's compensation claim. He entered into a Compromise Settlement Agreement (CSA) with the Industrial Accident Board but orally attempted to withdraw his consent before the board's approval. Despite the oral notice, the board initially approved the agreement. However, the board later set aside the CSA, citing a timely request from Johansson to withdraw consent. The appellant challenged this decision in District Court, arguing that oral notice was insufficient to void the CSA. The appellate court examined the Industrial Accident Board's explicit rule (28 Tex.Admin.Code § 55.60), which mandates written notice for withdrawal of consent, a provision amended in 1985 to emphasize the written requirement. Furthermore, Texas case law establishes that once the Board approves a settlement, it loses jurisdiction over the case. The court concluded that the oral repudiation was ineffective as it did not comply with Rule 55.60, and therefore, no effective notice of withdrawal was given. Consequently, the court found no evidence to support the trial court's findings and judgment, reversing and rendering the judgment in favor of the appellant.

Workers' CompensationCompromise Settlement AgreementOral vs. Written NoticeIndustrial Accident Board JurisdictionAppellate ProcedureSufficiency of EvidenceAdministrative Rule InterpretationWithdrawal of ConsentTexas Law
References
9
Case No. 2006 NY Slip Op 26532, 14 Misc 3d 842
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2006

Matter of Lyle A.

The case concerns Lyle A., a 4½-year-old child in foster care, who was prescribed Depakote Sprinkles for behavioral issues. The Monroe County Department of Human Services (Department) obtained consent from his mother through a caseworker, not the prescribing physician, and failed to respond adequately to her attempts to withdraw consent. The Family Court, Monroe County, ruled that the Department's procedures for obtaining parental consent for psychotropic medication and handling withdrawal of consent were legally insufficient, violating the child's and parent's due process and liberty rights. The court emphasized that informed consent requires direct physician consultation and that parents maintain the right to make medication decisions for children in foster care. The decision mandates the Department to reform its procedures for medication administration and consent.

Child NeglectFoster CarePsychotropic MedicationParental ConsentInformed ConsentDue ProcessLiberty InterestsMedical TreatmentWithdrawal of ConsentFamily Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Lyle A.

This case concerns the legally insufficient procedures used by the Monroe County Department of Human Services regarding the administration of psychotropic medication to a child, Lyle, in foster care. The Department failed to secure proper informed consent from Lyle's biological mother for Depakote Sprinkles, relying instead on a caseworker to communicate medical information. Furthermore, the Department did not have a reasonable procedure to respond meaningfully when the mother attempted to withdraw her consent, despite her constitutional liberty interest in avoiding unwanted drug administration. The court found that a parent maintains the right to make medication determinations for a child in foster care, and the Department must either honor consent withdrawal or seek a court order to continue medication. The permanency hearing report was otherwise approved, with the goal of returning Lyle to his parent.

Foster CarePsychotropic MedicationInformed ConsentParental RightsChild Protection ServicesMedical Treatment RefusalWithdrawal of ConsentDue ProcessChild NeglectMonroe County
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A. F. v. Spence Chapin Agency

A 16-year-old father, who previously consented to the adoption of his out-of-wedlock infant, sought custody, attempting to revoke his consent. The birth mother had also surrendered the child to Spence Chapin Services for Families and Children, who placed the baby with preadoptive parents. The court examined the validity of the minor father's consent, whether it was statutorily or constitutionally required, and his standing to petition for custody. It found the father's consent invalid due to the agency's insufficient guidance for a minor, but determined his consent was not legally required under Domestic Relations Law § 111 (1) (e) as he did not meet the criteria for demonstrating paternal interest. Applying the 'best interest of the child' standard, the court ultimately denied the father's custody petition, concluding the preadoptive parents were better suited.

Adoption LawChild CustodyMinor Parents' RightsParental ConsentBest Interests of the ChildFamily LawUnmarried FathersRevocation of ConsentAdoption AgenciesLegal Standing
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2013

Claim of Zaldivar v. SNS Organization

The claimant suffered a back and leg injury during employment, leading to a workers' compensation claim and a third-party action. The workers' compensation claim was established. The claimant sought the carrier's consent to settle the third-party claim. The carrier initially consented with conditions, but later questioned the settlement terms upon learning it was structured, requesting an investigation. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge directed the claimant to provide proof of compliance with consent conditions. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed and continued the case for further record development. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Board's decision was interlocutory and did not dispose of all substantive issues.

Third-Party SettlementCarrier ConsentInterlocutory AppealRecord DevelopmentAppellate ProcedureStructured SettlementDismissed AppealProcedural RulingConditions for ConsentWorkers' Compensation Board
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Schatz Fed. Bearings Co., Inc.

The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) sought to withdraw from the Creditors’ Committee in the bankruptcy estate of Schatz Federal Bearings Co., Inc. The Creditors’ Committee opposed the withdrawal, aiming to preserve its appeal of an earlier ruling that deemed the UAW eligible to serve. The court granted the UAW's application to withdraw, citing that a creditor's willingness to serve is a key factor in committee composition and that compelling service is not justified when the creditor no longer has an interest in the case, especially since the debtor's business has ceased and its assets were liquidated. The court also noted the UAW's pension rights were guaranteed by ERISA and it had negotiated a new contract with the asset buyer, making its position on the committee academic.

BankruptcyCreditors' CommitteeUnion RepresentationMotion to WithdrawMootness DoctrineERISADebtor LiquidationJudicial DiscretionAdequate RepresentationVoluntary Service
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doyle S. Silliman v. City of Memphis

This case concerns an appeal by the City of Memphis regarding the trial court's decision to set aside a 2006 consent order. The consent order allowed the annexation of the Southwind Annexation Area, effective December 31, 2013. Property owners sought to set aside this order, citing a new annexation moratorium (Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-51-122) passed in May 2013. The trial court sided with the property owners, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court clarified that the moratorium applies to the 'operative date' of the annexation ordinance, which for the City's ordinance was 2008, not the 'effective date' of the annexation. Therefore, the annexation was not prohibited by the moratorium, and the original consent order is reinstated.

Annexation LawConsent OrdersStatutory InterpretationRule 60.02 ReliefMootnessAbuse of Discretion StandardMunicipal BoundariesQuo Warranto ActionsLegislative AuthorityOperative Date vs Effective Date
References
108
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1982

Claim of Moore v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

This case involves an appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a carrier's conduct regarding a claimant's third-party action settlement. The core issue was whether the board's finding that the carrier was estopped from raising lack of consent to the settlement as a defense for future compensation awards was supported by substantial evidence. The record showed that the claimant's attorney sought the carrier's consent multiple times but was advised it was unnecessary. The board concluded that the carrier's prior denials of the necessity for consent legally prevented them from later asserting its absence as a defense. The appellate court affirmed the board's decision.

Workers' CompensationEstoppelThird-Party ActionSettlement ConsentCarrier ConductFuture AwardsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate DivisionClaimant RightsDefense Waiver
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John B. Ex Rel. L.A. v. Goetz

This memorandum addresses the Defendants' motion to vacate a Consent Decree concerning the provision of medical services to over 500,000 Medicaid-eligible children in Tennessee. The Plaintiffs, John B. and other minors, had previously filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the state failed to provide Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) services under the Medicaid Act. Defendants sought to vacate or modify the Consent Decree, citing new legal developments from Westside Mothers II and Brown v. Tennessee Dept. of Finance & Admin. The Court acknowledges these cases but ultimately denies the Defendants' motion to vacate and their alternate argument for modification, finding that the Consent Decree's provisions for outreach services and mandated medical assistance remain enforceable under federal law. The memorandum details the state's historical non-compliance and the ongoing necessity of the decree to ensure children receive essential healthcare.

Medicaid ActEPSDT servicesChildren's healthcareConsent DecreeState waiver programFederal fundingOutreach servicesMedical assistanceCompliance issuesManaged Care Organizations
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 1,017 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