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

In re Ortiz-Peredo

The Chapter 13 Trustee objected to the Debtors' Chapter 13 plan, arguing they did not meet the "best efforts" test by not including lawsuit settlement proceeds in their disposable income. The Debtors contended the lawsuit proceeds were exempt property and thus not liable for pre-petition debts. The Court reviewed the interplay between exemption provisions (§ 522(c)) and disposable income requirements (§ 1325(b)), distinguishing between majority and minority views on the matter. Following the majority view and *In re Launza*, the Court determined that once settlement proceeds are defined as income and "disposable income" under § 1325(b), they qualify as projected disposable income, irrespective of their exempt status. Consequently, the Court granted the Trustee's Objection, requiring the Debtors to propose a new plan within fourteen days or face dismissal.

BankruptcyChapter 13Disposable IncomeExempt PropertySettlement ProceedsPlan ConfirmationTrustee ObjectionBest Efforts TestSan Antonio DivisionPost-Petition Income
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1995

In Re Minor

The court consolidated two Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, In re Minor and In re Mills, concerning objections by the Chapter 13 Trustee to the debtors' claims of exemption for lump-sum workers' compensation benefits. Debtors Kevin S. Minor, Angela D. Minor, and Martin Blaine Mills had received these settlements post-confirmation and sought to exempt them under Tennessee law. The primary issues resolved by Chief Judge Richard S. Stair, Jr. were whether these awards constituted property of the estate under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1306(a) and whether they should be included as "disposable income" for plan confirmation under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1325(b)(2). The court held that workers' compensation awards are indeed property of the estate and, despite state law exemptions, must be included in the calculation of disposable income to be applied to the Chapter 13 plan, to the extent not reasonably necessary for the debtors' support or business operations. Consequently, the Trustee's objection to amended exemptions was sustained in part, affirming that the benefits are property of the estate and disposable income, but overruled in part as debtors could still claim exemption under state law.

Chapter 13 BankruptcyWorkers' CompensationExemptionsDisposable IncomeProperty of EstatePost-Confirmation ModificationBankruptcy CodeTennessee LawLump Sum SettlementStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2006

In Re Rotunda

This case addresses an objection by Mark W. Swimelar, the Chapter 13 trustee, to the Chapter 13 Plan filed by debtors Elizabeth and Lawrence Rotunda. The trustee argued that the plan failed to allocate all of the debtors’ projected disposable income to unsecured creditors, as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B). The debtors' income exceeded the state median, making their case subject to the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA). The court reviewed conflicting judicial interpretations regarding the calculation of "projected disposable income", specifically whether to use historical averages from Form B22C or current income and expenses from Schedules I and J, including Social Security benefits. Chief Judge Stephen D. Gerling ultimately denied the trustee's objection, ruling that the court must adhere to the explicit statutory language, even if it leads to outcomes where debtors with apparent surplus income are not required to pay more to unsecured creditors, emphasizing that it is Congress's role to rectify any unintended consequences of the law.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13Disposable IncomeMeans TestBAPCPAStatutory InterpretationSocial Security BenefitsUnsecured CreditorsPlan ConfirmationMedian Income
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ortiz-Peredo v. Viegelahn

Appellants, debtors in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, appealed three orders from the bankruptcy court concerning the confirmation of their plan and dismissal of their case. The central issue was whether worker's compensation settlement funds, exempted from the bankruptcy estate, should be included in "projected disposable income" for plan payments to unsecured creditors under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1). The District Court denied the Appellee's (Chapter 13 Trustee) motion to dismiss the appeal, finding it timely. The Court affirmed the bankruptcy court's orders, ruling that exempt property must be included in the disposable income analysis and that "current monthly income" encompasses income "from all sources" regardless of its exempt status or Census Bureau exclusions, thereby requiring the settlement funds to be applied to unsecured creditors.

BankruptcyChapter 13Disposable IncomeExempt PropertyWorker's CompensationAppealPlan ConfirmationTimeliness of AppealFederal Bankruptcy ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waste Disposal Center, Inc. v. Larson

Waste Disposal Center, Inc. appealed a judgment for Soila Valdez and Michelle Larson concerning property damage, negligence, trespass, and nuisance. Cross-appellants, including Valdez, challenged the dismissal of claims against the Estate of Franklin F. Kelley and the jury charge on strict liability, and the constitutionality of the exemplary damages cap. The court affirmed the jury's finding of property damages but reversed the award for mental anguish, citing insufficient evidence. It also upheld the dismissal against the Kelley Estate on jurisdictional grounds and affirmed the constitutionality of the exemplary damages cap, thereby affirming in part and reversing and rendering in part.

Property DamageNegligenceTrespassNuisanceExemplary DamagesMental AnguishConstitutional LawOpen Courts ProvisionSeparation of PowersJury Verdict
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Watson v. Cencom Cable Income Partners

The court granted summary judgment for the defendant, Cencom Cable Income Partners d/b/a Charter Communications, in a case brought by Rex M. Watson. Watson alleged discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), and retaliation for a workers' compensation claim, due to his termination stemming from carpal tunnel syndrome. The court found that Watson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, as he could not demonstrate that his impairment substantially limited a major life activity. Specifically, the court noted that carpal tunnel syndrome alone was insufficient to prove disability under the ADA's definition. Consequently, the federal ADA claim was dismissed with prejudice, and the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice, as the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Americans with Disabilities ActCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationWorkers' Compensation RetaliationTennessee Human Rights ActSubstantially LimitsMajor Life ActivityPrima Facie CaseRepetitive Motion Injury
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tarrant County Waste Disposal, Inc. v. Doss

John Lee Doss, an employee of Tarrant County Waste Disposal, Inc. (TCWD), sustained personal injuries in a bulldozer fall. TCWD, a non-subscriber to Worker's Compensation, had a blanket accident policy which paid Doss's medical expenses. Doss signed a release related to partial disability coverage but subsequently sued TCWD for common law negligence. The trial court ruled in favor of Doss. TCWD appealed, arguing the release barred the claim, a new trial was justified by newly discovered evidence, and an offset for medical payments was due. The appellate court found the release only applied to policy claims, TCWD lacked diligence regarding new evidence, and that payments from TCWD's policy were not from a collateral source, thus allowing an offset. The judgment was reformed to reduce Doss's recovery by the medical expenses paid and affirmed as reformed.

Workers' Compensation Non-SubscriberBlanket Accident PolicyCollateral Source RuleRelease Agreement InterpretationNewly Discovered EvidenceMotion for New TrialContinuance DenialOffset for Medical ExpensesCommon Law NegligenceDue Diligence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

East Texas Salt Water Disposal Co. v. Werline

Richard Leon Werline, an employee of East Texas Salt Water Disposal Company, was awarded severance pay in a 'final and binding' arbitration. The Company petitioned the district court to vacate the award, which the court granted, ordering a re-arbitration. Werline appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the district court's judgment, confirming the original arbitration award. The Company then petitioned the Supreme Court for review, arguing the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that an order denying confirmation of an arbitration award is appealable under the Texas General Arbitration Act, even if it also vacates the award and directs a rehearing.

ArbitrationAppealTexas General Arbitration ActVacaturConfirmationRehearingJurisdictionEmployment LawSeverance PayJudicial Review
References
42
Case No. 06-06-00039-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2006

Richard Leon Werline v. East Texas Salt Water Disposal Company, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from the denial of an application to confirm an arbitration award. Richard Leon Werline initiated arbitration against East Texas Salt Water Disposal Company, Inc., for breach of his employment contract. The arbitrator awarded Werline twenty-four months' pay, but the trial court vacated the award and ordered a rehearing. The Court of Appeals addressed whether it had jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal, concluding that it did based on the plain language of the Texas Arbitration Act. On the merits, the appellate court determined that the trial court erred in denying Werline's application, finding sufficient evidence to support the arbitrator's decision and no gross mistake. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment confirming the arbitrator's award.

Arbitration AwardContract BreachEmployment AgreementOperations ManagerInterlocutory AppealJurisdictionTexas Arbitration ActStandard of ReviewGross MistakeVacating Award
References
60
Case No. 03-18-00364-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Low Income Consumers, Mary Wilson and Hipolita Lutz v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

This case involves a direct appeal challenging amendments to Rules 25.478 and 25.480 adopted by the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Texas. The appellants, "Low Income Consumers," Mary Wilson, and Hipolita Lutz, along with the intervenor City of Houston, argued that the PUC failed to comply with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and misconstrued relevant statutes. They specifically contested the repeal of the split-deposit provision in former Rule 25.478(e)(3) and amendments to Rule 25.480 concerning late fees and deferred payment plans, asserting these were essential customer protections rather than benefits tied to the expired System Benefit Fund (SBF). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s order, concluding that the Commission acted within its statutory authority and adhered to the APA's notice and reasoned justification requirements. The court found that the contested provisions were not mandated protections under other sections of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA).

Public Utility CommissionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)System Benefit Fund (SBF)RulemakingCustomer ProtectionsLow-income customersSplit-deposit provisionDeferred payment plansLate-fee waiverStatutory interpretation
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 877 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