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. 12-20-00235-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2021

Texas Health & Human Services Commission Lufkin State Supported Living Center v. Gerald Willard

Gerald Willard, an employee at the Lufkin State Supported Living Center, developed leg pain and began using a cane. After being told he couldn't work with his cane, he submitted a doctor's note and was subsequently advised to resign and reapply for a security guard position, which he did. However, he was then informed he was ineligible for the new role. Willard filed suit alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate. The trial court denied the employer's plea to the jurisdiction, but the Court of Appeals reversed, dismissing the discrimination claim due to sovereign immunity. The failure to accommodate claim was remanded to the trial court to allow Willard to amend his pleadings.

Disability DiscriminationFailure to AccommodateSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionConstructive DischargeTexas Labor CodeEmployment LawAppellate ReviewJurisdictional FactsProbationary Period
References
24
Case No. No. 10-07-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2008

SSHG, LLC D/B/A Support Services Holdings Group and Legacy Support Services, LTD. v. Eric Ian Lewis

Eric Ian Lewis, an employee of SSHG, LLC, was injured on the job while using an electric hand planer. He sued his employer, a worker's compensation nonsubscriber, for negligence. A jury found for Lewis, and SSG appealed the judgment, arguing it had no duty to warn of obvious dangers and that Lewis's own negligence caused the injury. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the danger of using the planer on small pieces of wood without a jig was not obvious or commonly known to Lewis, thus SSG owed a duty to train and warn. The court also found the evidence legally sufficient to support the jury's negligence finding against SSG.

Workplace NegligenceEmployer LiabilityDuty to WarnSafe WorkplacePower Tool InjuryWorker's Compensation NonsubscriberProximate CauseContributory Negligence (defense denied)Jury Verdict AppealAppellate Court Decision
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hyek v. Field Support Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Audra Hyek initiated an action against her former employer, Field Support Services, Inc. (FSSI), alleging gender discrimination under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). FSSI moved for summary judgment, which the court reviewed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. The court found that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination, specifically regarding disparate treatment in equipment, training, policy enforcement, or her termination compared to a male co-worker. Additionally, Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim was deemed abandoned due to her failure to address Defendant's arguments in opposition papers. Consequently, the court granted FSSI's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Plaintiff's claims.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationTitle VIINYSHRLSummary JudgmentDisparate TreatmentHostile Work EnvironmentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretext
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Madison County Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Chafee v. Felker

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order that found the respondent in willful violation of a child support order. The respondent, the father of a son born in 2002, failed to pay $25 per week in child support to Mary Chafee, as mandated by a May 2007 order. The Family Court affirmed the Support Magistrate's finding of willful violation and imposed a sentence of incarceration, conditional upon payment of $3,650 in arrears. The appellate court rejected the respondent's arguments, including his inability to pay due to lack of income and his claim regarding the $500 arrears cap, citing a lack of credible evidence and his failure to seek modification of the original support order. Consequently, the Family Court's determination was affirmed.

Child SupportWillful ViolationArrearsFamily Court ActParental ObligationContempt of CourtAbility to PayModification of SupportAppeal DecisionSupport Magistrate
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coniglio v. Coniglio

This is a proceeding under New York's Uniform Support of Dependents Law (USDL) initiated to seek child support for Jennifer Coniglio from her father, the respondent. A hearing examiner initially recommended a bifurcated support order of $60 per week during the respondent's employment season and $25 per week during unemployment, based on his seasonal construction work. The respondent objected to these findings, challenging the court's jurisdiction due to a pre-existing divorce decree that included child support provisions. Judge Anthony F. Bonadio, referencing Lebedeff v Lebedeff and Nichols v Bardua, ruled that the USDL provides an additional remedy, not a modification, and affirmed the court's jurisdiction to determine support de novo, without being bound by the Supreme Court decree. Considering the approximate equal incomes of both parents, the court set a new support order for the respondent at $30 per week, to be paid through the support collection unit, and ordered him to maintain medical and dental insurance for Jennifer Coniglio as per the separation agreement.

Child Support EnforcementUniform Support of Dependents LawJurisdictional DisputeDe Novo DeterminationParental Financial ContributionSeasonal Employment IncomeUnemployment Benefits ConsiderationMedical Insurance ProvisionDivorce Decree InteractionSupport Collection Unit
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. Martin

The father appealed two Family Court orders concerning child support modification and counsel fees. The father sought to modify his child support obligation due to business collapse, illness, and an alleged agreement with the mother to provide childcare in lieu of payments. The mother sought a finding of willful violation. The Support Magistrate dismissed the father's petitions and found willful violation, which the Family Court affirmed. On appeal, the Court found the father received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to introduce crucial medical evidence and ensure a key witness's presence, which prejudiced his case. Therefore, the appellate court modified the December 29, 2005 order, reversed the October 26, 2006 order, remitted for a new trial on the modification and violation petitions, and denied counsel fees.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselChild SupportModification of Support OrderWillful ViolationAdjournment DenialEvidence AdmissibilityMedical RecordsTherapist TestimonyIncarcerationFamily Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallesandro v. Dallesandro

This opinion addresses a motion by Nationwide Insurance Company, the workers' compensation carrier for the respondent's employer, to vacate a wage deduction order issued on June 26, 1981. The original order directed Nationwide to withhold $95 per week from the respondent's workers' compensation benefits for the support of his former wife and two children, due to the respondent's failure to pay. Nationwide contended that it was not explicitly authorized by Personal Property Law § 49-b and that workers' compensation benefits were statutorily exempt from support claims. The court rejected both arguments, holding that carriers acting as employer agents are bound by the law and that workers' compensation exemptions do not apply to support claims, citing legislative intent evidenced by the repeal of a former exemption. Consequently, the motion to vacate was denied, and the carrier was directed to comply with the original order.

Wage Deduction OrderWorkers' Compensation BenefitsChild SupportAlimonyStatutory InterpretationPersonal Property LawWorkers' Compensation LawCarrier LiabilitySupport EnforcementLegislative Intent
References
7
Case No. 07-13-00372-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2015

in the Matter of the Marriage of Stephenie McDaniel and Andrew Stuart McDaniel and in the Interest of A.G.D.M., a Child

Andrew Stuart McDaniel, a federal prisoner, appealed pro se from a final divorce decree. The trial court granted a divorce, divided the marital estate, and designated Stephenie McDaniel as the managing conservator of their child. McDaniel raised seven complaints on appeal, including denial of due process, failure to consider statutory factors for conservatorship, failure to execute findings of fact and conclusions of law, failure to rule on motions, unequal division of the marital estate, denial of spousal support, and judicial misconduct. The Court of Appeals, Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo, affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in the trial court's rulings on due process, spousal support, property division, child's best interests, or judicial conduct. The court noted McDaniel's failure to preserve certain complaints for review and found that ample evidence supported the trial court's decisions.

DivorceChild CustodyMarital Estate DivisionDue ProcessSpousal SupportJudicial MisconductAppellate ReviewPro Se AppealParental RightsTexas Family Law
References
13
Case No. M2017-00958-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2018

In Re Addalyne S.

In this parental termination case, maternal Grandparents sought to terminate the parental rights of both Mother and Father for abandonment. The trial court found no grounds for termination as to Mother and only willful failure to support for Father, but ultimately concluded that terminating Father's rights was not in the child's best interest. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment. It upheld the finding against Mother for willful failure to visit and support, and for Father, it affirmed the willful failure to support but agreed that termination was not in the child's best interest, citing Father's meaningful relationship with the child and the guardian ad litem's recommendation.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbandonmentWillful Failure to SupportWillful Failure to VisitBest Interest of the ChildGrandparent PetitionDrug AbuseIncarcerationParental CapacityToken Support
References
48
Case No. M2023-00279-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2024

In Re Chance B.

Mother, Heather B., appealed the termination of her parental rights and the stepparent adoption of her two minor children, Chance B. and Isaiah B., by their stepmother, Jennie B., and father, Troy B. The trial court in Montgomery County had found three grounds for termination: abandonment by failure to visit, abandonment by failure to support, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, concluding it was in the children's best interest. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court addressed a mootness issue regarding one child turning eighteen during the appeal, concluding it was not moot due to collateral consequences and the intertwined stepparent adoption. While vacating the 'failure to visit' ground for an incomplete analysis, the court affirmed the 'failure to support' and 'failure to manifest ability and willingness to assume custody' grounds, upholding the termination and adoption decision.

Parental Rights TerminationStepparent AdoptionChild AbandonmentChild SupportChild CustodyMootness DoctrineBest Interest of ChildAppellate ProcedureDomestic AbuseFamily Law
References
52
Showing 1-10 of 10,925 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