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

Adkisson v. Jacobs Eng'g Grp., Inc.

Plaintiffs, cleanup workers at the Kingston Fossil Fuel Plant, sued a defendant for personal injuries caused by fly ash exposure, alleging negligence, fraud, and strict liability. The court considered the defendant's motions for summary judgment on general causation and judgment on the pleadings for strict liability claims. The motion for summary judgment on general causation was denied, as plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence that fly ash constituents could cause the alleged diseases. However, the court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding strict liability, ruling that fly ash cleanup is not an inherently ultrahazardous activity under Tennessee law. The case will now proceed to trial on phase one.

fly ashtoxic tortgeneral causationspecific causationsummary judgmentstrict liabilityabnormally dangerous activityTennessee lawepidemiologyDaubert challenge
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McRae v. Guinn Flying Services

The appellate case involves George and Della McRae, along with Matlack, Inc., appealing the dismissal of their lawsuit against Guinn Flying Services and Frances Garza. The McRaes had sued for negligence in air ambulance services, alleging that the flight aggravated George McRae's leg injury, while Matlack, Inc. sought to recover worker's compensation payments. The trial court struck the McRaes' pleadings and dismissed their case due to alleged discovery abuses, specifically an evasive answer to one interrogatory, without a formal hearing on the motion for sanctions. The appellate court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the extreme sanction of dismissal without evidence of bad faith or willful disobedience, given that the McRaes had timely responded to discovery. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment in all respects, including the dismissal of Matlack, Inc.'s derivative claims, and remanded the entire cause for trial on the merits.

Discovery abuseSanctionsDismissalAbuse of discretionAppellate reviewInterrogatoriesTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureWorker's compensationNegligenceAir ambulance
References
9
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06798 [131 AD3d 1033]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2015

Rossi v. Flying Horse Farm, Inc.

Troy Rossi, a horse groomer, sued Flying Horse Farm, Inc., for personal injuries sustained from a ladder fall at the defendant's commercial property, alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court granted Rossi's motion to dismiss the defendant's homeowner's exemption defense and, sua sponte, dismissed the recalcitrant worker defense. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal of the homeowner's exemption, finding the property was primarily commercial and not a residence under the exemption. However, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by reinstating the recalcitrant worker defense. This modification was based on the Supreme Court's error in dismissing the defense sua sponte when the plaintiff had not moved for such relief.

Personal injuryLabor LawHomeowner's exemptionRecalcitrant worker defenseSummary judgmentAppellate procedureAffirmative defensesLadder fallCommercial propertyProperty owner liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Padilla v. Flying J, Inc.

Rosa Padilla appealed a take-nothing judgment against her former employer, Flying J, Inc. Padilla alleged sexual harassment by a manager and sought a finding of corporate liability for assault and a tangible employment action. The trial court found in favor of Flying J, stating that it exercised reasonable care to prevent harassment, Padilla failed to take advantage of remedial measures, and her transfer was not a demotion or retaliatory. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that no tangible employment action was taken, and therefore, Flying J could raise an affirmative defense to the sexual harassment claim. Padilla was also denied attorney's fees as she was not a prevailing party.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationAffirmative DefenseTangible Employment ActionCorporate LiabilityVice Principal TheoryAttorney's FeesTexas Commission on Human Rights ActAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
11
Case No. 2015-02-0451
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2018

Brewer, Jeffrey v. G.UB.MK Constructors

This case involves Jeffrey Brewer, an employee, alleging occupational exposure to coal fly ash. The employer, G.UB.MK Constructors, and its carrier, Zurich North America, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The key legal issues were subject matter jurisdiction and the sufficiency of Mr. Brewer's proof regarding his occupational exposure and incapacity. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims at Knoxville granted G.UB.MK's motion for summary judgment, finding that it had jurisdiction over the case but Mr. Brewer failed to establish partial or total incapacity from working, and also lacked sufficient evidence to establish causation. The case was dismissed without prejudice, allowing Mr. Brewer to file a claim in the future if he becomes incapacitated.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseSummary JudgmentJurisdictionCausationExpert WitnessIncapacityCoal Fly AshProcedural HistoryStatute of Limitations
References
3
Case No. 2020-02-0545
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2021

Cody, Dan v. G.UB.MK Constructors

The employee, Dan Cody, alleged an occupational disease (coronary artery disease and hypertension) due to coal fly ash exposure while working for G.UB.MK Constructors. The employer moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing the employee had not established a compensable occupational illness or an incapacity for work. The trial court denied this motion, citing genuine issues of material fact. The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the employer failed to meet its burden for summary judgment. The Board clarified that employees may be entitled to medical benefits for occupational diseases even if they haven't yet experienced a total or partial incapacity for work, affirming reliance on prior Supreme Court precedent.

Occupational DiseaseCoal Fly Ash ExposureWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissCompensabilityMedical BenefitsPartial Incapacity for WorkCoronary Artery DiseaseHypertension
References
15
Case No. 2020-03-0244
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2020

Johnson, Robert E. v. G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc.

Robert E. Johnson, an employee, filed a claim against G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc., his employer, for alleged occupational exposure illnesses and/or injuries sustained as a commercial truck driver on the Kingston Fly Ash Recovery Project between 2012 and 2014. After telephonic mediation, the parties agreed to a dismissal without prejudice. The employee has a third-party tort suit pending for the same claims and is currently working full-time without restrictions. The Court approved the dismissal, allowing the employee to refile the workers' compensation claim in the future if he becomes incapacitated and provides medical proof that the incapacity is over 50% related to his work, pursuant to T.C.A § 50-6-102(14) and T.C.A. § 50-6-303(a). The filing fee was taxed to G.UB.MK.

Workers' Compensation ClaimsOccupational IllnessesDismissal Without PrejudiceTelephonic MediationTrucking IndustryDisputed CompensabilityThird-Party LitigationDOT Medical CertificateStatutory InterpretationAgreed Order
References
3
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05209 [151 AD3d 1037]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

Kearney v. Dynegy, Inc.

Louis Kearney appealed an order granting summary judgment to Dynegy, Inc., and F.T. Silfies, Inc., dismissing his claims for personal injuries under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and common-law negligence. Kearney was injured after falling from a ladder on a tanker-trailer while removing fly ash at a power plant owned by Dynegy Danskammer, LLC. He alleged defects in the ladder's design and Dynegy Danskammer's failure to install a "SafeRack system." The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the defendants did not have the authority to supervise or control Kearney's work for the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. Furthermore, the court concluded that Kearney's work constituted routine maintenance, not a protected activity under Labor Law § 240 (1), thus dismissing that claim.

Summary JudgmentPersonal InjuriesLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Common-Law NegligenceSafe Place to WorkSupervision and ControlRoutine MaintenanceAppellate DivisionOrange County
References
20
Case No. 2019-02-0247
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2019

Shiflet, Richard v. EMCOR Group, Inc, d/b/a Cherokee Millwright, Inc.

Richard Shiflet, an employee, suffered a foot injury at work in September 2018. He sought temporary disability and medical benefits, including a pain stimulator and treatment for depression, which were denied by his employer, EMCOR Group, Inc. EMCOR also requested a neuropsychological examination. The Court denied Shiflet's request for temporary and medical benefits at this time, finding he had reached Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) and had not seen the panel physician, Dr. William Fly, recently. The Court also denied EMCOR's motion to compel the neuropsychological examination as premature. However, the Court ordered EMCOR to arrange an appointment for Shiflet with Dr. William Fly for further evaluation or provide a panel of orthopedists.

foot injuryworkers' compensationtemporary disability benefitsmedical benefitscomplex regional pain syndrome (CRPS)maximum medical improvement (MMI)neuropsychological examinationpain managementorthopedicspsychological services
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 1999

Connolly v. Bidermann Industries U.S.A., Inc.

Plaintiff Diana Campbell Connolly sued her employer, Great American, and other defendants for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) after her termination in January 1995. Connolly, a Vice President of Sales, developed a hearing impairment and tinnitus which prevented her from flying, an essential function of her job. She contended she could have been reassigned to a vacant position that did not require flying. A jury found in her favor, awarding $50,000 for past pain and suffering, $475,000 for past lost wages and benefits, and $350,000 in punitive damages against Great American. The defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law or for a reduction in damages, arguing they were not legally obliged to reassign her and that the damages were excessive. The court denied the defendants' motion in all respects, affirming the jury's finding that reassignment to a vacant position is a reasonable accommodation under the ADA and upholding the damages award.

ADADisability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationReassignmentWrongful TerminationBack PayPunitive DamagesTinnitusJury VerdictRule 50(b) Motion
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 43 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