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

Montgomery County v. Grounds

This workers' compensation appeal concerns the death of Chief Deputy Bill Grounds, who suffered a fatal heart attack at his home following severe emotional trauma. The trauma stemmed from his employer, the Montgomery County Sheriff, failing to meet him as promised to discuss a grand jury investigation into altered sheriff department records, leading Grounds to believe he was being abandoned and betrayed. Although Grounds was later indicted for his alleged involvement in record alteration, the jury found that his injury and subsequent death resulted from mental trauma in the course of his employment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the mental trauma, preceding knowledge of the indictment, was the producing cause of his death. The court emphasized that the Workers' Compensation Act should be liberally construed and that compensation is due when a heart attack results from mental or emotional stress traceable to a definite time, place, and event within employment.

Workers' CompensationMental TraumaHeart AttackCourse of EmploymentProducing CauseIndictmentSheriff's DepartmentRecord AlterationEmotional DistressJudicial Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2014

City of New York v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.

The City and State of New York sued FedEx Ground, alleging the knowing delivery of unstamped cigarettes from 2005 to 2012, which violated the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (CCTA), the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and New York Public Health Law § 1399-ii, and constituted a public nuisance. FedEx Ground filed a motion to dismiss these claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss the CCTA, RICO, and RICO conspiracy claims, finding sufficient grounds for aggregation of sales, pattern of predicate acts, participation in the enterprise, injury to business or property, and proximate causation. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the New York Public Health Law claim, ruling that the 2013 amendment, which would grant the City and State enforcement authority, did not apply retroactively. The court also granted the motion to dismiss the public nuisance claim, concluding that it primarily involved alleged tax evasion, which is already subject to comprehensive regulation, rather than unauthorized shipments to minors.

Contraband CigarettesCigarette TraffickingRICO ActPublic Health LawPublic NuisanceMotion to DismissTax EvasionStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationProximate Cause
References
42
Case No. M2019-00639-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

In Re Gracie H. Y.

Ashley H. (Mother) appealed the termination of her parental rights to her minor children, Noah H. and Gracie H. Y., by the Lawrence County Chancery Court. The Trial Court had terminated Mother's parental rights on multiple statutory grounds, including abandonment by failure to visit, wanton disregard, failure to provide a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, persistent conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility. The Trial Court also found termination to be in the children's best interest. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the statutory ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home due to insufficient factual findings. However, the appellate court affirmed the Trial Court's judgment in all other respects, finding clear and convincing evidence to support the other grounds for termination and that the termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest, citing Mother's continued drug use, criminal history, unstable housing, and failure to comply with permanency plans and address mental health issues.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbandonmentWanton DisregardPermanency Plans NoncompliancePersistent ConditionsFailure to Assume CustodyBest Interest of ChildDrug AbuseIncarceration HistoryDomestic Violence Exposure
References
32
Case No. 2021-03-0083
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2025

Shurina, George v. FedEx Ground

This interlocutory appeal addresses whether an estate, through its personal representative, can litigate a workers' compensation claim pro se in Tennessee. Mary Christina Shurina, representing the estate of Gregory Joseph Shurina, appealed a trial court's order mandating legal representation. The Appeals Board affirmed, citing statutory and regulatory requirements that artificial entities like estates must be represented by a licensed attorney. The Board emphasized that representing an estate in court constitutes the unauthorized practice of law for a non-attorney. The decision underscores the legal imperative for estates to engage counsel in workers' compensation proceedings.

Workers' CompensationPro SeEstate LawLegal RepresentationAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawUnauthorized Practice of LawTennessee LawDecedent's Estate
References
7
Case No. 2017-08-1205
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2018

Washington, John v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc.

John Washington, an employee of UPS Ground Freight, Inc., requested additional medical and temporary disability benefits for a September 7, 2017 work injury. UPS maintained it had paid all entitled benefits and had provided multiple panels of neurologists, which Mr. Washington largely rejected due to subjective concerns. The Court found that UPS had complied with its statutory duty to provide physicians, but Mr. Washington had not complied with his duty to choose one. The Court ordered UPS to allow Mr. Washington to choose another neurologist from the previously provided panels, warning that benefits could remain suspended if he failed to comply. The Court denied Mr. Washington's requests for payment of unauthorized emergency room bills, personal care assistant payments, additional temporary disability benefits, and adjustments to his wage rate calculation, concluding that his refusal to accept medical services justified the suspension of temporary benefits.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityExpedited HearingNeurology EvaluationPost-Concussion SyndromeWage Rate CalculationUnauthorized TreatmentPhysician PanelEmployee Non-Compliance
References
6
Case No. 44 S.W.3d 554
Regular Panel Decision

Lawrence v. CDB Services, Inc.

Justice Baker's dissenting opinion argues that the majority's decision to uphold waivers of workers' compensation claims on public policy grounds directly contradicts the intent and established public policies of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The dissent emphasizes that the Act created a comprehensive system to encourage employer participation in workers' compensation insurance and ensure adequate redress for all injured employees. Baker asserts that the Court improperly defers to the Legislature on a matter where legislative intent, prioritizing employee protection and encouraging subscription, is clear. The dissent concludes that such waivers are void as they undermine the statutory scheme, and their acceptance by employees should not render them enforceable.

Workers' Compensation ActPublic PolicyWaiversEmployer LiabilityEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationContract LawDissenting OpinionTexas LawCommon Law Defenses
References
26
Case No. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. ADJ1 798995 (SAC 0324817)
Regular
Mar 08, 2016

Richard Hill vs. Tuttle Interior Systems, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reversed a finding that an Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination was moot due to untimeliness. The Board held that while the Utilization Review (UR) decision expired, the subsequent IMR determination, even if issued outside statutory timeframes, remained valid. The WCAB emphasized that untimeliness is not a statutory ground to appeal an IMR decision and that IMR timeframes are directory, not mandatory. Consequently, the case was returned to the trial level, with the existing IMR decision binding unless grounds for appeal under Labor Code section 4610.6(h) are established.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code § 4610.6SB 863Medical NecessityDirectory vs. Mandatory TimeframesAdministrative DirectorMaximus Federal Services
References
31
Case No. 06 Civ. 7784
Regular Panel Decision

National City Golf Finance v. Higher Ground Country Club Management Co.

Defendant and third-party plaintiff Higher Ground asserted claims against third-party defendant ProLink for breach of warranty and for indemnification and contribution. ProLink moved to dismiss the Third-Party Complaint or compel arbitration, citing an arbitration clause and a forum selection clause. Higher Ground argued the agreement was unsigned and unenforceable under the statute of frauds and that claims were outside the scope. The court, applying the Federal Arbitration Act, found an agreement to arbitrate existed due to Higher Ground's conduct, and the claims fell within the broad scope of the arbitration clause. ProLink’s motion was granted, and proceedings on the Third-Party Complaint were stayed pending arbitration in Maricopa County, Arizona.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Contract LawBreach of WarrantyIndemnificationContributionForum Selection ClauseStatute of FraudsAgreement to ArbitrateThird-Party Complaint
References
46
Case No. W2023-01333-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2024

In Re Royalty Y.

This case involves an appeal concerning the termination of Marissa Y.'s parental rights to her child, Royalty Y. The trial court initially found four statutory grounds for termination, including abandonment, persistence of conditions, and failure to assume custody/financial responsibility. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the trial court's reliance on the abandonment grounds, citing its failure to make findings on the mother's affirmative defense of lack of willfulness. However, the appellate court affirmed the termination based on the remaining grounds and the child's best interest, emphasizing the child's long-term foster care and bond with foster parents. The case was remanded for enforcement of the termination order.

Parental Rights TerminationAbandonmentFailure to VisitFailure to SupportMental Health CrisisChild NeglectBest Interest of ChildAffirmative DefenseWillfulnessAppellate Review
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 4,865 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