Skip to main content

Lauren Taylor v. John and Stephanie Ingram, LLC

Tenn.September 11, 2025No. M2024-01348-SC-WCM-WC

Case Details

Judge(s)
Senior Judge Roy B. Morgan
Status
Unknown
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

Lauren Taylor ("Employee") sustained a compensable injury on May 12, 2019, whileworking for John and Stephanie Ingram, LLC ("Employer"). The Court of Workers'Compensation Claims ("trial court") entered an order approving a settlement agreement onAugust 24, 2021. Giving rise to the instant appeal, Employee filed a motion to set aside thesettlement agreement on January 24, 2024. The trial court denied the motion on twoindependent grounds. First, the trial court determined that the motion was not timely filed.Second, the trial court found that, even if the motion was timely, Employee had failed toshow that relief was warranted. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board ("AppealsBoard") affirmed on both grounds. Employee has appealed and the appeal has been referredto the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee SupremeCourt Rule 51. We affirm.

What This Ruling Means

**Taylor v. John and Stephanie Ingram, LLC: Worker Tries to Undo Settlement Agreement** This case involved Lauren Taylor, who was injured while working for John and Stephanie Ingram, LLC on May 12, 2019. After her workplace injury, Taylor and her employer reached a settlement agreement that was approved by the Workers' Compensation Court in August 2021. However, nearly three years later in January 2024, Taylor tried to cancel that settlement agreement by asking the court to set it aside. The court denied her request, ruling against her on two separate legal grounds (though the excerpt doesn't specify what those grounds were). **What This Means for Workers:** This case highlights an important reality about workers' compensation settlements: once you agree to a settlement and the court approves it, it becomes very difficult to change your mind later. Workers should carefully consider settlement offers and potentially seek legal advice before agreeing, because courts are generally reluctant to undo these agreements years after they're finalized. The significant time gap between Taylor's settlement (2021) and her attempt to set it aside (2024) likely worked against her, as courts typically expect prompt action if someone wants to challenge an agreement.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Derinda Carr v. Windham Professionals, Inc.
Tenn.Apr 2022

Appellant Derinda Carr challenges the trial court's finding her neck injury did not arise primarily "out of and in the course and scope of' her employment. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We agree with the trial court and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Win
Bethany Shelton v. Hobbs Enterprises, LLC
Tenn.Sep 2021

Bethany Shelton ("Employee") filed a petition for benefit determination against Hobbs Enterprises, LLC ("Employer") alleging an injury to her right shoulder suffered in a work- related accident on August 26, 2017. She sought temporary total, permanent partial, and continued medical benefits. Following the issuance of a dispute certification notice, Employer moved for summary judgment on the basis the only medical testimony, from the Employee's treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Sean Kaminsky, was insufficient as a matter of law to establish causation. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims (the "trial court") denied the motion and denied Employer's motion to reconsider. Employer sought an expedited appeal before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, but then sought and was granted a dismissal of that appeal. A trial was held, after which the trial court denied Employee's claim on the ground she had failed to meet her burden to establish her right shoulder injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment with Employer. Employee filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied. She appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims.

Defendant Win

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.