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. E2007-02602-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2010

Gerry G. Kinsler v. Berkline, LLC

The case involves an employee, Gerry G. Kinsler, who filed a retaliatory discharge action against his employer, Berkline, LLC. Kinsler was discharged three days after he rejected a workers’ compensation settlement offer, following a workplace injury that resulted in a permanent lifting restriction. Berkline claimed Kinsler was discharged due to his inability to perform his job duties with the lifting restriction. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for Berkline, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, citing genuine issues of material fact. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment, holding that there were sufficient factual disputes to preclude summary judgment, particularly regarding the employer's true motivation for the discharge.

retaliatory dischargeworkers' compensationsummary judgmentemployment-at-willlifting restrictionjob dutiesmaterial factcausationsubstantial factorsettlement offer
References
10
Case No. 05-15-01533-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2015

in Re: Bryan Rowes

This case involves an original proceeding initiated by Bryan Rowes related to a family law matter. The record includes a protective order issued against Bryan Rowes in April 2014, prohibiting him from harassing or threatening Mary Tillotson and restricting his proximity to her and her workplace. Subsequently, Mary Tillotson filed a motion for enforcement, alleging multiple violations of this protective order by Bryan Rowes, including unwanted contact, appearing at her workplace (Children's Medical Hospital), sending threatening emails, and disseminating a 'sex offender' letter. The court found Bryan Rowes in civil and criminal contempt for two specific violations: an elevator encounter at the courthouse and a harassing email. He was sentenced to a $500 fine and 30 days of confinement in county jail.

Family LawProtective OrderContemptChild CustodyStalkingHarassmentEnforcementAttorney FeesTexas LawParental Rights
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

RONE ENGINEERING SERVICE, LTD. v. Culberson

This is a restricted appeal from a no-answer default judgment against Rone Engineering Service, Ltd., filed by Troy Culberson. The core issue was whether the trial court acquired personal jurisdiction over the appellant due to discrepancies in the defendant's name on the citation and return of service versus the judgment. The appellate court found that the record did not affirmatively demonstrate strict compliance with the rules governing service of process. It concluded that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Rone Engineering Service, Ltd. Therefore, the court vacated the default judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

restricted appealdefault judgmentservice of processpersonal jurisdictionmisnomercorporate identityappellate reviewvoid judgmentprocedural errorremand
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maliqi v. 17 East 89th Street Tenants, Inc.

The court addresses motions in limine concerning the admissibility of evidence related to the plaintiff's immigration status, future lost wages, and medical expenses in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff, an undocumented political asylum seeker named Maliqi, was injured while working. The court ruled that while the plaintiff's immigration status is relevant for the jury to consider potential economic realities if he is deported, it cannot be used to argue that his status prohibits awards for future lost wages or medical expenses. Furthermore, the defendant is precluded from asserting that the plaintiff was working illegally at the time of the accident. The court also permitted expert testimony from an economist regarding future damages but denied the admission of testimony from the plaintiff's immigration counsel as an expert.

Workplace InjuryUndocumented WorkerPolitical AsylumImmigration StatusLost WagesMedical ExpensesEvidence AdmissibilityMotions in LimineExpert TestimonyEconomic Damages
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 1994

In re Quinones

This case concerns an appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Board had ruled that the claimant sustained a compensable back injury after slipping on ice in a parking lot across from her workplace. Despite the employer having sold the parking lot and allegedly notifying employees not to park there, the Board found the injury arose from employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision. It was determined that the employer failed to prove the claimant received prior notification regarding the parking restrictions, thus supporting the finding of a compensable injury.

Workers' CompensationWorkplace InjuryParking Lot AccidentCompensable InjuryEmployer LiabilityInsurance Carrier AppealBoard Decision AffirmationNotice RequirementCourse of EmploymentBack Injury
References
0
Case No. 2014-07-0024
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2015

Ricketts, David v. Dana Holding Corporation

David Ricketts, an employee, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking additional temporary disability benefits after being terminated by Dana Holdings Corporation on September 3, 2014. Ricketts sustained a left shoulder injury on August 4, 2014, for which Dana authorized medical care. His termination resulted from allegations of falsifying company documents and sleeping while clocked in. Ricketts argued his actions were inadvertent and that his termination should not affect his entitlement to benefits. The Workers' Compensation Judge denied the claim, finding that Dana terminated Ricketts for cause and could have accommodated his medical restrictions, thus upholding the employer's right to enforce workplace rules.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsTermination for CauseWorkplace PolicyEmployee MisconductModified DutyShoulder InjuryRotator Cuff TendonitisTime Clock Violation
References
7
Case No. 2017-01-0335
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2017

Laboo, Zachariah v. Koch Foods, LLC

This expedited hearing concerned Zachariah Laboo's request for temporary partial disability benefits after being terminated by Koch Foods, LLC. Mr. Laboo injured his right thumb at work and underwent surgery. While accommodated with restrictions, he accumulated points under Koch's attendance policy, leading to a corrective action notice. Despite Mr. Laboo's differing account of events, the court found that Koch Foods had cause to terminate his employment due to violations of workplace expectations, including attendance issues, insubordination during a meeting, and failure to attend a scheduled meeting. Consequently, the Court denied Mr. Laboo's claim for temporary disability benefits.

Temporary Disability BenefitsTermination for CauseWorkplace MisconductAttendance PolicyInsubordinationUlnar Collateral Ligament InjuryRight Thumb InjuryWorkers' Compensation ClaimsExpedited HearingEmployer Rules
References
3
Case No. 2017-06-0070
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2017

Baker, Tonya v. Electolux

Tonya Baker sought an expedited hearing for medical and temporary disability benefits after a workplace fall. She requested payment for medical bills, a change in her authorized treating physician, and temporary disability payments. Electrolux argued she was not entitled to these benefits, stating they provided medical treatment. The Court found Ms. Baker likely to succeed in obtaining a new panel of physicians but denied her requests for temporary disability benefits and payment of unauthorized medical bills, citing a lack of evidence for the latter and no doctor-issued restrictions for the former. The incident was deemed compensable, but Ms. Baker's ongoing pain after being released by the authorized physician led to the decision for a new panel.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsPanel of PhysiciansAuthorized Treating PhysicianSciaticaLumbar StrainWorkplace InjuryMedical Treatment Dispute
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Conway-Acevedo v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier was not entitled to reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund. The carrier appealed this decision. To establish entitlement to reimbursement, the carrier needed to prove a preexisting permanent impairment that hindered job potential, a subsequent work-related injury, and a permanent disability caused by both conditions that is materially and substantially greater than from the work-related injury alone. The Board found the carrier failed to prove that the claimant’s preexisting osteoarthritis hindered her employment. The appeals court affirmed the Board's decision, citing a lack of evidence that the claimant's arthritic condition caused pain, missed work, or imposed restrictions prior to her workplace accident.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting ImpairmentOsteoarthritisWork-Related InjuryPermanent DisabilityEmployer LiabilityCarrier AppealBurden of Proof
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mullenix v. Eastman Chemical Co.

Plaintiff Judy Mullenix sued her former employer, Eastman Chemical Company, alleging discriminatory termination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) after a workplace injury left her with physical restrictions. The court denied Eastman's motion to strike Mullenix's affidavit. On Eastman's motion for summary judgment, the court denied summary judgment on Mullenix's claims of being "actually disabled" and "qualified for her position with reasonable accommodation," citing genuine issues of material fact regarding essential job functions and the reasonableness of requested assistance from Utility Operators. However, the court granted summary judgment to Eastman on the claims that Mullenix was "regarded as disabled" and for retaliation, finding no mistaken perception of disability and no causal link for retaliation.

ADA lawsuitEmployment discriminationWorkplace injuryPhysical restrictionsReasonable accommodationSummary judgment motionAffidavitRetaliation claimFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSixth Circuit Court of Appeals
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 1,659 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