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. W2013-00535-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Charles Haynes v. Formac Stables, Inc.

The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Charles Haynes' retaliatory discharge claims against Formac Stables, Inc. Haynes alleged he was fired for complaining to the owner about a forced, improper medical treatment involving horse sutures for a head injury. The central issue was whether an employee must report illegal activity to someone other than the wrongdoer to qualify as a whistleblower, even if the wrongdoer is the manager or owner. The Court held that to qualify as a whistleblower, an employee must report illegal activity to an entity other than the wrongdoer, which may necessitate reporting to an outside agency in situations where the wrongdoer holds the highest authority within the company. Consequently, as Haynes reported solely to Formac's owner, he did not satisfy the reporting requirement for a whistleblower claim. The Court overruled prior conflicting precedents.

WhistleblowerRetaliatory DischargeEmployment-at-WillInternal ReportingPublic PolicyWrongdoerTennessee LawStatutory InterpretationPublic Protection ActEmployee Rights
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosado v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc.

Hector Rosado, an employee of Comet Fibers, Inc., was injured by a garnett machine manufactured by Proctor & Schwartz, Inc. Rosado sued Proctor, which then filed a third-party action against Comet, seeking indemnification for Comet's failure to install safety devices as per their sales contract. The trial court and Appellate Division dismissed Proctor's indemnification claim, leading to Proctor's appeal to the Court of Appeals. The Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a manufacturer is primarily responsible for ensuring product safety and cannot shift this nondelegable duty to the purchaser through contractual boilerplate. The decision clarifies that implied indemnification is not applicable in strict products liability actions when the manufacturer is a wrongdoer and not merely vicariously liable.

Products LiabilityIndemnificationContributionStrict LiabilitySafety DevicesManufacturer LiabilityPurchaser ResponsibilityContractual ObligationImplied IndemnityGeneral Obligations Law § 15-108
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plough, Inc. v. Premier Pneumatics, Inc.

This case involves the interpretation of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-914 (now § 50-6-112), which governs actions against third parties liable for an employee's injury when workers' compensation benefits are paid. The core issue is whether an employer, after the one-year statute of limitations for the employee, has an additional six-month period to sue alleged tortfeasors not initially pursued by the injured employee, especially when the employee has sued some but not all potentially liable third parties. The trial court's decision, which prevented the employer from maintaining such a suit, was reversed. The appellate court held that the statute grants the employer a six-month window to sue any alleged tortfeasor not previously sued by the employee, affirming the legislative intent to place the financial burden on the wrongdoer and benefit both employer and employee.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party LiabilitySubrogation LienStatutory ConstructionTennessee LawEmployer RightsEmployee RightsTortfeasorsJoint and Several LiabilityStatute of Limitations
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. People

This opinion addresses an application filed by an unnamed hospital, referred to as the 'Petitioner,' seeking to quash two Grand Jury subpoenas duces tecum. These subpoenas, issued in August 1982 by the Deputy Attorney-General for Medicaid fraud control, sought patient medical records, including 'progress notes' and 'mechanical ventilation flow sheets.' The hospital argued against disclosure based on patient privacy rights and the physician-patient privilege. The court, presided over by Justice George J. Balbach, denied the application, reaffirming that a hospital under investigation for potential crimes against its patients cannot assert these privileges to obstruct a Grand Jury investigation. The decision emphasized the Grand Jury's broad investigatory powers and the principle that privileges are intended to protect patients, not shield alleged wrongdoers.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumPhysician-Patient PrivilegePatient PrivacyMedicaid Fraud ControlHospital RecordsConfidentialityQuash SubpoenaCriminal InvestigationStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. 04 Cv. 8144(SWK)
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2007

In Re Marsh & McLennan Companies, Securities Litigation

Plaintiff M.F. Henry filed a Third Amended Complaint alleging violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. and its directors, citing false statements and omissions in proxy statements. The defendants moved for dismissal, raising arguments of res judicata and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court rejected the res judicata defense, noting issues with privity and the case's unique procedural history. However, the court granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, concluding that the defendants had no duty to disclose uncharged mismanagement, the potential incidental benefit of an options exchange to unnamed wrongdoers, or an auditor's alleged prior audit failures, as these omissions did not render any explicit statements misleading. The Third Amended Complaint was consequently dismissed with prejudice.

Securities LitigationProxy SolicitationRule 14a-9 ViolationsMaterialityDuty to DiscloseCorporate MismanagementShareholder Derivative ActionRes Judicata DoctrineMotion to DismissFederal Securities Law
References
34
Case No. 04-CV-5449
Regular Panel Decision

Litle v. Arab Bank, PLC

Thousands of U.S. and foreign nationals sued Arab Bank PLC under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and Alien Tort Claims Act (ATS), alleging the bank knowingly financed terrorist organizations responsible for attacks in Israel. Arab Bank, in turn, filed third-party complaints seeking contribution from other Israeli banks, claiming they also processed funds for "front" organizations. The court examined whether a right to contribution exists under the ATA or ATS. It concluded that Congress did not explicitly or implicitly create such a right under the ATA, nor should federal common law establish one, especially for intentional wrongdoers. Similarly, no basis was found to create a contribution right under the ATS. Therefore, the third-party defendants' motions to dismiss Arab Bank's contribution claims were granted, and the plaintiffs' motion to strike was dismissed as moot.

terrorism financingAnti-Terrorism ActAlien Tort Claims Actcontribution rightsfederal common lawtort liabilityinternational terrorismbank complicityMiddle East conflictterrorist organizations
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laine v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

This case addresses whether an umbrella insurance policy covers punitive damages assessed against an uninsured motorist, when the umbrella policy's coverage scope is defined by the underlying uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. Sandra Gervais Laine sued Farmers Insurance Exchange after her mother was killed by an uninsured drunk driver. Farmers paid the policy limit under the primary UM policy but denied payment under the umbrella policy for exemplary damages awarded against the drunk driver. The trial court granted Farmers' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, ruling that UM coverage does not include exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed, citing Texas public policy against insurance recovery for punitive damages assessed against an uninsured motorist, stating that such damages are intended to punish the wrongdoer, not the insurer. The court also rejected Laine's estoppel and constitutional claims.

Uninsured Motorist CoverageUnderinsured Motorist CoverageUmbrella InsuranceExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesPublic PolicyInsurance Policy InterpretationWrongful Death ClaimJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictTexas Insurance Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCormick v. United States

The plaintiff, an employee of Maytag Aircraft Corporation, suffered injuries at Ellington Air Force Base after slipping on oil. He filed an action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging negligence for failing to provide a safe workplace. The United States, in turn, filed a third-party claim against Maytag, seeking indemnity or contribution based on a contractual provision or common-law principles, arguing Maytag was the active wrongdoer. Maytag moved to dismiss the third-party action, asserting that the indemnity clause did not cover the government's own negligence and that as a subscribing employer under the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Act, it was immune from direct or indirect liability to the plaintiff. The court granted Maytag's motion, finding that the contract did not clearly indemnify the government for its own negligence and that under Texas worker's compensation law, Maytag could not be held liable indirectly when it had no direct liability to the injured employee. Consequently, the third-party action was dismissed.

Federal Tort Claims ActIndemnity AgreementContribution ClaimWorkers' Compensation ActEmployer ImmunityGovernment ContractorPremises LiabilityThird-Party ActionContract InterpretationStatutory Construction
References
15
Showing 1-8 of 8 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