The employee suffered a compensable left shoulder injury in 2022. Following a period of medical treatment with an authorized provider, the employee was released at maximum medical improvement and assigned a permanent medical impairment rating. In 2023, the parties entered into a court-approved settlement agreement resolving the employee’s claim for an original award of permanent disability benefits and leaving open his entitlement to future medical benefits with his authorized provider. Thereafter, the employee continued to experience symptoms in his left shoulder and sought additional treatment from his authorized provider, who recommended surgery. In late 2024, the employee filed a petition asking the court to allow him to select a new authorized physician. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the employee’s request, and the employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and certify it as final.

T.E. enrolled his son, C.E., in a long-term, residential-treatment center to address C.E.’s mental-health issues. That enrollment followed years of failed attempts to address C.E.’s conditions through other means. T.E. asked his insurer Anthem to help cover the costs of the treatment. Anthem agreed and paid for the first 21 days of C.E.’s treatment without issue. But it then reversed course and refused to pay any further, reasoning that C.E.’s treatment was no longer medically necessary. After a series of failed internal appeals with Anthem, T.E. sued. He alleged that Anthem’s coverage denial was arbitrary and capricious under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and violated the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (Parity Act). The district court granted summary judgment to Anthem on both claims. We agree with T.E. that Anthem’s coverage decision was arbitrary and capricious. But T.E. has failed to identify record evidence demonstrating that Anthem’s decision violated the Parity Act. We therefore affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to remand to Anthem for further assessment of T.E.’s coverage request.

Lifestyle Communities, Ltd. and Worthington Campus LLC (collectively, “Lifestyle Communities”) bought a parcel of real estate in the City of Worthington, Ohio. It wanted to build a mix of residential and commercial spaces on the property. But before it could do so, Lifestyle Communities needed Worthington to approve its development plan and rezone the property. When the City did neither, Lifestyle Communities sued, bringing numerous federal and state constitutional claims and a state-law declaratory-judgment claim. The district court rejected every claim, some at the summary-judgment stage and others at the motion-todismiss stage. Lifestyle Communities now challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Worthington on its regulatory-takings and declaratory-judgment claims. It also argues that the district court erred in dismissing its due-process claims. We affirm.

The State of Ohio filed this lawsuit in state court, alleging that a group of healthcare firms conspired to drive up prices of prescription drugs in violation of several Ohio laws. The defendant firms include two Pharmacy Benefit Managers, known in the industry as PBMs, that negotiate with drug companies to provide prescription drug coverage for federal employees. The PBMs removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute. Ohio moved to remand, arguing that its complaint does not impose liability on any conduct undertaken at the direction of a federal officer. We conclude that it does and reverse the district court’s contrary determination.

This case shows the “cost” that litigants impose on themselves when they pursue only facial constitutional claims. Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707, 723 (2024). Kentucky passed a law requiring covered sex offenders to put their legal names on their qualifying social-media accounts. John Doe (a covered sex offender) sought to have the statute declared unconstitutional and moved for a preliminary injunction. He argued that the law violated the First Amendment because it barred regulated parties from speaking anonymously online. Yet he did not attempt to enjoin the law as applied to any specific speech or any specific social-media account. Rather, he sought broad relief by arguing that the law was facially overbroad. Although the district court agreed with Doe, it did not engage in the demanding comprehensive review that a facial challenge requires. See id. at 723–26. Like the Supreme Court in NetChoice, then, we vacate the court’s injunction and remand for further proceedings.

Joshua Steeb rescued his friend from a dog attack, but then the dog turned on him, mauling him and causing permanent injuries. To redress these injuries, he brought a claim against Battle Creek animal control officer Mike Ehart under the “state-created-danger” theory of substantive due process, alleging that Ehart created the dangerous circumstances that resulted in the dog attack. He also sued the City of Battle Creek for failure to adequately train and equip Officer Ehart. The district court dismissed both of Steeb’s claims for failure to successfully plead a constitutional violation. We agree and affirm.

This case requires us to consider what actions qualify as valid “offers” and “acceptances” to form contracts in the online world. Websites often tell consumers that they will “agree to” or “accept” various contractual terms (including arbitration provisions) by engaging in certain conduct, such as clicking a button or registering an account. If consumers take the specified action, when do these online proposals create binding contracts to arbitrate? We must consider that question under California contract law. LowerMyBills.com refers internet users who are interested in refinancing their home mortgages to affiliated lending partners, including Rocket Mortgage. The website tells users that they will agree to its hyperlinked “Terms of Use”—including a mandatory arbitration provision—if they click on a particular button. Michael Dahdah visited this website three times, inputted his information, and clicked the critical buttons. LowerMyBills referred him to Rocket. When Dahdah later received calls from Rocket that he did not want, he sued the company in federal court. Rocket responded by invoking LowerMyBills’ arbitration provision. But the district court held that Dahdah’s “click” did not create an enforceable agreement. We disagree. Under the significant body of circuit precedent interpreting California law, LowerMyBills gave Dahdah sufficiently conspicuous notice that he would accept the proposed terms by clicking the button. So his decision to take this action qualified as a valid “acceptance” of LowerMyBills’ “offer” to contract. The district court thus should have granted Rocket’s motion to compel arbitration. We reverse.

At its January meeting this past weekend, the TBA Board of Governors certified election filing results. One contested election will be held this year for the office of vice president. Knoxville attorney Mary Elizabeth Maddox and Johnson City attorney Deborah Yeomans-Barton are running to become TBA’s president in 2028-2029. Read a statement from each of the candidates. Electronic voting will begin on Jan. 30 and close on Feb. 13. Watch for an email with a link to the ballot from Intelliscan Inc.

Also this weekend, the board declared election results for uncontested seats with 11 individuals deemed to be elected because they were the only duly qualified candidate to file. It also declared a vacancy in two board positions: West Tennessee Grand Division Governor (a one-year term) and 7th District Governor (a three-year term). The 7th District includes the counties of Benton, Carroll, Chester, Crockett, Decatur, Dyer, Fayette, Gibson, Hardeman, Hardin, Haywood, Henderson, Henry, Lake, Lauderdale, McNairy, Madison, Obion, Tipton and Weakley. To be considered for either of these positions, email a statement of interest and resume to TBA Executive Director Sheree Wright at barED@tnbar.org by March 3. The board will consider nominees at its March meeting. See the full list of certified candidates and vacancies on the TBA website.

A rule allowing 401(k) plan participants to use penalty-free withdrawals to pay for long-term care insurance is now in effect. Part of the Secure Act 2.0, this provision allows contributors to use up to $2,600 annually for qualified premiums. The rule is currently discretionary, and 401(k) sponsors can ultimately determine if they will offer this benefit. Experts say it might take some time for meaningful adoption, with companies and insurers awaiting guidance from the IRS regarding scope and application of the rule. There is also uncertainty over whether the full premiums for a hybrid policy would qualify. CNBC has more.

The March 6 Estate Planning & Probate Forum will take place at the Franklin Marriott Cool Springs, just a couple of miles away from its past location. This year's event will feature sessions on litigation in estate planning, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, public receivership, a probate panel, ethics, legislative updates and much more. Section members receive a discounted rate to attend. Don’t miss this chance to meet with colleagues from across the state and hear from Tennessee's top estate planning experts. Register now.