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. M2021-01193-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2023

Robert Crotty v. Mark Flora, M.D. (Concur in Part and Dissent in Part)

This is a dissenting opinion regarding an interlocutory appeal that centers on the interpretation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-119 and its impact on the collateral source rule in health care liability actions. The dissenting judge argues that this statute abrogates the collateral source rule, asserting that recoverable damages should be limited to the actual economic losses suffered, specifically the amounts actually paid by plaintiffs or their insurance, rather than the full, undiscounted medical bills. The opinion emphasizes that the statutory language, particularly "actual economic losses suffered" and "paid or payable," clearly supports this interpretation. Furthermore, it references legislative intent behind the Medical Malpractice Act, which aimed to control healthcare costs, as a rationale for a strict construction of the statute.

Medical MalpracticeCollateral Source RuleStatutory InterpretationHealth Care Liability ActActual Economic LossesDamagesInsurance LawPretrial OrdersTennessee Supreme CourtDissenting Opinion
References
27
Case No. MDL No. 1038
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2002

In Re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation

This multidistrict products liability action involved thousands of plaintiffs alleging injuries from the Norplant contraceptive device against American Home Products Corporation and its subsidiaries. The court considered two motions for partial summary judgment. The first, concerning the 'learned intermediary doctrine' and 26 primary side effects, was granted in part and denied for 10 plaintiffs whose cases were governed by New Jersey law due to an advertising exception. The second motion, addressing over 950 'exotic conditions' for which no causation evidence was presented, was granted against all plaintiffs. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment against 2,960 plaintiffs, effectively concluding the MDL proceedings for the majority of the non-settling cases.

Products LiabilityNorplantContraceptive DeviceLearned Intermediary DoctrineCausationSummary JudgmentMultidistrict LitigationFailure to WarnPharmaceuticalsTexas Law
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Complaint of Wepfer Marine, Inc. for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability

Wepfer Marine, Inc. filed a petition to limit liability after Jose Ramon Gonzalez was injured during barge demolition. Gonzalez and his wife, along with Liberty Mutual, sued Wepfer in state court, leading Wepfer to seek federal limitation of liability. Claimants moved to dismiss the federal action, citing lack of admiralty jurisdiction due to the barge's 'dead ship' status and untimeliness of Wepfer's petition. The court granted dismissal for the main barge, ET-715, ruling it was a 'dead ship' withdrawn from navigation. However, it denied dismissal concerning the crane barge, finding potential causation through a broken crane cable, thereby retaining jurisdiction for that aspect. The court also found Wepfer's petition timely, as prior correspondence from claimants did not constitute sufficient written notice to trigger the statutory six-month filing period.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawLimitation of Liability ActVessel StatusDead Ship DoctrineAdmiralty JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)TimelinessWritten Notice of Claim
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hargett v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

David T. Hargett sued the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), its executives (Stanley Grill, David Ross, May Mcintosh), the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), and its employees (Ken Neal, James Harding, Jr.) for wrongful discharge based on civil rights violations, age discrimination, New York State Human Rights Law, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and breach of contract. Hargett, an African American male, was terminated from NYCTA in June 2004 after a female subordinate accused him of sending inappropriate emails, an accusation she later recanted claiming she was pressured by NYCTA management. The court, presided by Judge McMahon, granted in part and denied in part the NYCTA Defendants' motion to dismiss, specifically dismissing IIED, defamation, and breach of contract claims as time-barred or lacking legal merit. The MTA Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims was granted, as the MTA was not considered Hargett's employer and individual liability requirements were not met. The NYCTA Defendants' motion to strike certain paragraphs from the complaint was denied.

Wrongful TerminationAge Discrimination in Employment ActCivil Rights ViolationRacial DiscriminationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamation LawsuitBreach of Employment ContractMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsEmployment Discrimination
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capps v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co.

Archie Capps appealed a take-nothing judgment, arguing that American Mutual Liability Insurance Company improperly deducted both worker's compensation and social security benefits from his disability insurance payments. Capps, disabled in 1972, received disability policy payments from 1973 and a lump-sum worker's compensation settlement in 1974, which included attorney's fees. He also received monthly social security benefits. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the insurance policy's anti-duplication clause permitted the deduction of both worker's compensation and social security payments. Furthermore, the court found that attorney's fees awarded in the worker's compensation case were part of the total amounts payable and were properly deducted, and that the calculation of payments was correct.

AppealDisability InsuranceWorker's CompensationSocial Security BenefitsAnti-duplication ClauseAttorney's FeesLump-sum SettlementBenefit DeductionsPolicy InterpretationInsurance Law
References
2
Case No. 06-cv-05285
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2014

Muszkatel v. 90 Church Street Ltd. Partnership

Jerzy Muszkatel, an asbestos abatement worker, sued multiple defendants (owners, environmental consultants, contractors, subcontractors) for common law negligence and violations of New York Labor Law sections 200 and 241(6), alleging injuries from working in buildings near the World Trade Center post-9/11 due to inadequate safety equipment and procedures for "alkaline-based" dust. The District Court, presided by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, denied in part and granted in part the defendants' motions for summary judgment. The court found triable issues of fact regarding supervisory control and premises liability under Labor Law 200 for most defendants across multiple sites (2 World Financial Center, 90 Church Street, 140 West Street). It also sustained Section 241(6) claims for these sites concerning specific Industrial Code violations (23-1.5(c)(3), 23-1.7(h), 1.8(c)(4), 23-1.8(b)(l)), but dismissed claims for work at 101 Barclay Street and 7 Dey Street due to lack of "construction, excavation or demolition" activity, and dismissed all claims against Indoor Environmental Technologies, Inc.

asbestos abatementWorld Trade Center9/11 clean-upsummary judgmentNew York Labor Lawnegligenceindustrial code violationsoccupational hazardspersonal protective equipmentsite safety
References
29
Case No. 07-CV-247-PRM
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2010

United States Ex Rel. Gonzalez v. Fresenius Medical Care North America

Relator Rebecca Gonzalez, a former Fresenius employee, brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA) against Fresenius Medical Care North America, BioMedical Applications of Texas, Inc., Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., Larry Ramirez, and Alfonso Chavez. Gonzalez alleged that Fresenius and Chavez submitted false or fraudulent claims to Medicare by using unlicensed medical assistants and engaging in an illegal referral scheme violating anti-kickback and Stark laws. She also claimed retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law, dismissing most of Gonzalez's claims against Fresenius and some against Chavez due to insufficient evidence regarding express or implied certifications of compliance, lack of criminal intent, or the unviability of certain legal theories in the Fifth Circuit. However, claims against Chavez regarding factual falsity under FCA (a)(1) and related (a)(2) and (a)(3) liability were allowed to proceed to a jury.

False Claims ActQui TamRetaliationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMedicare FraudAnti-Kickback ActStark LawJudgment as a Matter of LawFifth CircuitMedical Malpractice
References
36
Case No. 2015-06-0648
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2015

Garrard, John v. Mechanical Components of Tennessee

John Garrard, an employee, sought an expedited hearing for medical benefits related to hand and wrist conditions following a workplace incident on November 19, 2014. The court found that Mr. Garrard is likely to prevail in proving entitlement to medical benefits for cervical pain and hand tingling, citing the authorized treating physician's opinion on causation. However, the court denied his claim for wrist pain benefits, finding insufficient evidence to rebut the treating physician's opinion that the wrist condition was unrelated to the work accident and questioning the employee's credibility regarding a fall. The employer, Mechanical Components of Tennessee, is ordered to provide a panel of pain management physicians for Mr. Garrard's cervical pain and hand tingling.

Cervical PainHand TinglingMedical Benefits DenialPain Management ReferralCausation DisputeTreating Physician PresumptionExpedited Hearing OrderWork-Related InjuryEmployee Testimony CredibilityWrist Injury Claim
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Assurance Co. v. McDonald

This declaratory judgment action involves American Home Assurance Company seeking to limit its liability under professional liability policies issued to social workers Rory M. McDonald and Helene Ina Anisfeld, who are defendants in an underlying malpractice action brought by Randy Kamhi. Kamhi alleges sexual misconduct and professional negligence against McDonald, and vicarious liability and direct negligence against Anisfeld as McDonald's partner. American Home sought summary judgment to limit indemnification to $25,000 for sexual misconduct claims and punitive damages. The court granted summary judgment in part, affirming the $25,000 limit for McDonald's sexual misconduct and for punitive damages for both McDonald and Anisfeld. However, the court denied the request to terminate American Home's duty to defend McDonald upon exhausting the $25,000 limit and granted Kamhi's cross-motion to stay further summary judgment applications until discovery in the underlying action is complete. Crucially, the court found that extending the sexual misconduct coverage limit to non-sexual malpractice claims violates New York public policy.

Professional Liability InsuranceSexual MisconductInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment MotionPublic Policy ArgumentTherapist MalpracticeDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyUnconscionability Claim
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 1997

Riley v. Champion International Corp.

This case involves a lawsuit brought by Charles and Helen Riley against Champion International Corporation. Charles Riley, an independent logging contractor, contracted Lyme disease from a tick bite on Champion's property. Plaintiffs alleged negligence, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract for Champion's failure to warn about Lyme disease, and Helen Riley claimed loss of consortium and household services. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment on most tort claims but denying it for breach of contract. The Chief Judge adopted parts of this, affirming summary judgment on premises liability and misrepresentation negligence claims. However, the Chief Judge overruled the Magistrate Judge's conclusion on the "increased risk of harm" prong of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Champion's failure to provide safety information increased the risk of developing a chronic Lyme infection. Consequently, claims for breach of contract, negligent performance, gross negligence, loss of consortium, loss of household services, and punitive damages were revived for trial.

NegligenceBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLyme DiseaseIndependent ContractorDuty to WarnAssumed DutyGross NegligenceLoss of Consortium
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 7,286 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