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. 2015-08-0001 / 78521-2014
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2015

Ellis, John v. A Air-One Service

This interlocutory appeal concerns an employee who suffered a back injury while working as an HVAC service technician. The employer denied the workers' compensation claim, citing a positive drug test and its status as a certified drug-free workplace. However, a subsequent drug test yielded a negative result. The trial court determined that the employer's defense of illegal drug use, as codified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-110(a)(3), was not supported by the evidence. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the record and affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the employee had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption that illegal drug use was the proximate cause of the injury with clear and convincing evidence. The case has been remanded for further necessary proceedings.

Workers' Compensation AppealsEmployee Injury ClaimEmployer Drug PolicyDrug Test ResultsIllegal Drug Use DefenseProximate Cause of InjuryRebuttal of PresumptionHerniated Disk SurgeryHVAC Service IndustryTennessee Workers' Comp Law
References
5
Case No. 01-A-01-9509-CV-00407; 95-C-67
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 1996

Evelene v. Stein v. Davidson Hotel Company

Evelene N. Stein appealed the dismissal of her wrongful discharge and invasion of privacy claims against Davidson Hotel Company, her former employer. Stein was terminated after a positive random drug test and argued that Davidson's termination policy violated her constitutional and common law rights to privacy and protection from unreasonable searches. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the wrongful discharge claim, holding that Tennessee's public policy favors drug-free workplaces and no clear public policy opposed drug-test-based termination. Regarding the invasion of privacy, the court found Stein failed to allege sufficient public disclosure of her drug test results. Additionally, the court concluded that Stein had implicitly waived her right to an intrusion into seclusion claim by consenting to the drug test and continuing her employment, thereby affirming the trial court's decision and remanding for any further necessary proceedings.

Wrongful DischargeEmployment-at-WillDrug Testing PolicyPublic Policy ViolationInvasion of PrivacyConstitutional RightsSearch and SeizureEmployee TerminationAppellate ReviewSummary Judgment Standard
References
32
Case No. 2017-07-0644
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2018

Polk, Ricky v. Delta Faucet

Ricky Polk sought medical benefits for a May 22, 2017, work-related injury, which Delta Faucet denied based on his alleged falsification of a drug test. Polk was terminated after a testing nurse discovered a concealed urine container during a drug test on June 7, 2018. The Court found that the drug test, administered sixteen days post-injury, did not adhere to the Tennessee Drug Free Workplace Program's timing requirements. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of Polk, stating he is entitled to medical benefits and ordered Delta Faucet to provide a panel of physicians for his evaluation.

Workers' CompensationDrug TestExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsFalsificationEmployee TerminationDFWPTennessee LawProximate CausePanel of Physicians
References
2
Case No. Docket No. 2017-07-0073; State File No. 81955-2016
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2018

Kizer, Jared v. Express Services, Inc.

Employee Jared Kizer suffered an amputation injury to his right hand while operating a machine for Express Services, Inc., a participant in Tennessee's Drug-Free Workplace Program. Following a positive post-accident drug test for THC, the employer denied the claim. The trial court initially concluded the employee rebutted the presumption that his drug use was the proximate cause of the injury by clear and convincing evidence. However, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board reversed this decision, finding the employee failed to meet the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that his drug use was not the proximate cause, despite issues with machine guarding and employee training also being noted. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationDrug-Free Workplace ProgramProximate CauseAmputation InjuryMachine SafetyTHC Positive TestToxicology ReportMedical Expert TestimonyOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ReportStatutory Presumption
References
16
Case No. 2017-07-0073
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2018

Kizer, Jared v. Express Employment

Mr. Kizer, an employee, sustained a right-hand amputation while operating a machine at Pinnacle Foods, a client of his employer, Express Employment. His claim for workers' compensation was initially denied by Express, a participant in the Tennessee Drug Free Workplace Program, due to a positive post-accident drug test for THC. Mr. Kizer argued the injury was caused by a machine malfunction and inadequate training, not drug impairment. The Court found Mr. Kizer successfully rebutted the statutory presumption that drug use was the proximate cause, citing evidence of machine defects, lack of proper safety training, and expert testimony disputing impairment at the time of injury. Consequently, the Court ordered Express to pay for Mr. Kizer's medical bills and ongoing treatment, designating Dr. Michael Dolan as the authorized treating physician. However, his request for temporary disability benefits was denied due to insufficient evidence regarding his eligibility for such benefits.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityDrug Free Workplace ProgramIllegal Drug UseProximate CauseMachine MalfunctionAmputationRight Hand InjurySafety Protocols
References
7
Case No. 2020-07-0266
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2020

Morgan, Deborah v. Beall Manufacturing, Inc.

The Court held an Expedited Hearing on Ms. Morgan’s request for benefits for an alleged injury to her left hand/wrist. Beall Manufacturing, Inc., denied Ms. Morgan’s claim, contending she refused a post-accident drug screen and did not prove medical causation. The Court ruled that Beall was not entitled to the drug-free workplace presumption regarding drug influence as Ms. Morgan did attempt to provide samples and alternative collection methods were not followed. However, Ms. Morgan failed to provide medical evidence addressing causation, thus not meeting the burden of proving her work primarily caused the injury. Consequently, the Court denied her request for benefits.

Drug-Free Workplace PolicyPost-Accident Drug TestMedical CausationExpedited HearingRefusal to TestShy BladderEmployee TerminationWorkers' Compensation Claim DenialStatutory PresumptionTennessee Workers' Compensation Law
References
1
Case No. M2005-02050-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2006

State of Tennessee v. Marshall Ward Howell

The defendant, Marshall Ward Howell, appealed the revocation of his community corrections sentence, which was originally imposed after a guilty plea to sale of a controlled substance. The trial court revoked his sentence based on a positive cocaine drug test from his employer, Cooper Steel. Howell argued the test results were inadmissible under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-9-109(c). The appellate court ruled that a community corrections revocation is a 'criminal proceeding' but found Howell failed to prove his employer qualified under the Drug-Free Workplace Program statute. Additionally, the court found the drug screen results were properly admitted, satisfying statutory requirements for affidavits and good cause for the technician's absence. The appellate court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the sentence.

Criminal LawCommunity CorrectionsProbation RevocationDrug Test AdmissibilityControlled SubstanceDue ProcessAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationAffidavit Evidence
References
26
Case No. 2022-08-1388
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2023

Bishop, William v. ARJ, INC. d/b/a MR. ROOTER PLUMBING

William Bishop, an employee, sought medical benefits for a right arm, elbow, and shoulder injury sustained after falling from a ladder. The employer, ARJ, Inc., denied the claim, asserting participation in a Drug Free Workplace Program (DFWP) and alleging Mr. Bishop refused a drug test. The Court found ARJ did not submit sufficient proof of DFWP participation covering Mr. Bishop's injury date, noting the DFWP application was under a different legal entity. Consequently, ARJ failed to prove Mr. Bishop's injury was due to intoxication or drug use. The Court also determined that the recommended elbow surgery by Dr. Thompson was medically necessary, despite not strictly following official disability guidelines, as it was reasonably derived from them. The Court granted Mr. Bishop's request for medical benefits, including the elbow surgery, but declined to award attorney's fees at this interlocutory stage.

Drug Free Workplace ProgramMedical BenefitsElbow SurgeryMedical NecessityUtilization ReviewAuthorized Treating PhysicianPresumption of Medical NecessityAttorney's FeesExpedited HearingProximate Cause
References
4
Case No. 01 Civ. 2835
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Eastchester Union Free School District

Oswald Johnson, a 69-year-old cleaner, sued the Eastchester Union Free School District for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after his job location and hours were changed. The school district moved for summary judgment, arguing Johnson failed to establish an adverse employment action or an inference of discrimination. The court found that mere inconvenience from a lateral transfer and shift change, without a reduction in wages or altered job responsibilities, does not constitute a materially adverse employment action. Furthermore, the court determined that the evidence did not support an inference of age discrimination, as other employees of varying ages also experienced job assignment changes, and the decision-maker was also over 40. The court also found the mandatory physical examination, which revealed Johnson's cataracts, was job-related and consistent with business necessity. Therefore, Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and the court granted summary judgment to the Eastchester Union Free School District, dismissing the complaint.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionDisparate TreatmentADEALateral TransferShift ChangePhysical ExaminationPrima Facie Case
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Agyeman v. Roosevelt Union Free School District

Plaintiff Ak-ousa Agyeman, an elementary school teacher, filed a civil rights action against the Roosevelt Union Free School District and several individuals, alleging violations of her First Amendment rights and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York Civil Service Law § 75-b. Agyeman claimed she was retaliated against for engaging in protected speech, specifically through internal emails and a letter to the New York State Education Department, regarding student needs, District policies, and alleged legal violations. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing her speech was not constitutionally protected. The Court granted the defendants' motion, concluding that Agyeman's speech was made as a public employee performing official duties, not as a private citizen, and therefore was not protected by the First Amendment. Consequently, the Section 1983 claim was dismissed, and the remaining state law claim was dismissed without prejudice for re-filing in state court.

First Amendment retaliationPublic employee speechCivil rights actionSummary judgmentNew York State law claimDismissal without prejudiceTeacher employment disputeSchool district liabilityFreedom of speechOfficial duties
References
56
Showing 1-10 of 1,663 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