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. M2000-00163-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2001

Donald Andrews v. Barbara Andrews

In this post-divorce case, both parents sought modification of child support. The father sought a decrease due to the older child's emancipation, while the mother sought an increase citing the father's increased income and unconsidered benefits. The trial court decreased the support for the older child but increased it for the minor child. The mother appealed, arguing the trial court failed to consider the father's work-related benefits as income. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the mother failed to meet her burden of proving the value of the additional benefits as income to the father.

Child Support ModificationPost-DivorceIncome CalculationEmployment BenefitsBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewTennessee LawEmancipationIncome ImputationChild Support Guidelines
References
8
Case No. 02A01-9507-CH-00153
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 1996

Pamela Lemoine Ford v. Michael Burke Ford

This is a post-divorce proceeding where Pamela Ford (wife) appealed the trial court's decision regarding child support and alimony modification. The wife argued that the husband's trust principal withdrawals should be considered gross income and that the court erred in not imputing income to him due to voluntary unemployment. She also sought an increase in alimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of alimony increase, but reversed the trial court's holding on trust principal as gross income and the failure to impute income for voluntary unemployment, remanding the case for further proceedings. Costs on appeal were taxed to the husband, who was also ordered to pay half of the wife's attorney's fees for the appeal.

Post-divorceChild Support ModificationAlimony ModificationTrust PrincipalGross IncomeVoluntary UnemploymentImputed IncomeAppellate ReviewMarital Dissolution AgreementTennessee Law
References
6
Case No. 02A01-9802-CV-00050
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 1999

Kevin Kathleen Stacey v. Donald Ray Stacey

This case addresses the modification of a divorce decree concerning child support. Kevin Kathleen Stacey (Wife) sought an increase in Donald Ray Stacey's (Husband) child support obligation. The core issue revolved around whether a 'significant variance' existed, justifying modification, and if Husband's stock option income should be included in gross income calculations. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in failing to determine a significant variance and clarified that stock options should be factored into income. It reversed in part, affirmed in part, increased the child support to $1,973 per month, removed the previous income cap, and remanded the case for the setting of attorney's fees for the appeal.

Child SupportDivorce Decree ModificationStock Option IncomeIncome CalculationSignificant Variance TestChild Support GuidelinesAppellate ReviewAttorney's FeesMarital Property DivisionTennessee Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Massey v. Casals

The mother, Patricia Anne Gho Massey, petitioned to increase the father's, Gregory Joel Casals, child support obligation, alleging he misrepresented his income. The juvenile court found the father's testimony incredible, increased his child support retroactively, and ordered him to pay private school tuition and attorney's fees. The father appealed, challenging the income determination, the finding that the mother was not voluntarily underemployed, and the private school tuition. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding the income assessment, the ruling on the mother's employment, and the awards for tuition and attorney's fees.

Child SupportChild Support ModificationIncome MisrepresentationVoluntary UnderemploymentPrivate School TuitionAttorney's FeesRetroactive Child SupportArrearage CalculationDe Novo HearingCredibility Findings
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Starck v. Nelson

Raymond Starck appealed a child support judgment that reduced his obligations for a year, automatically increased support, and ordered monthly arrearage payments. The appellate court considered whether the trial court erred in considering Starck's current wife's income, deviating from child support guidelines without necessary findings, and making findings on his net resources and intentional underemployment without sufficient evidence. The court found that considering the new spouse's income indirectly violated the Family Code and that the findings regarding net resources and intentional underemployment were not supported by evidence. The automatic increase in child support was also found to be an abuse of discretion. The judgment was reformed to delete the automatic increase, the arrearage payments portion was reversed and remanded for further findings, and the judgment was affirmed as modified.

Child Support ModificationChild Support ArrearagesIntentional UnderemploymentNet Resources CalculationFamily Code InterpretationAbuse of DiscretionAutomatic Child Support IncreaseAppellate ReviewTexas Family LawMarital Income Consideration
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1983

Haskin v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services

The plaintiff, Doris Haskin, contested the reduction of her Social Security Supplemental Income (SSI) payments by the Secretary due to increases in her retirement benefits. She argued that these reductions were improper, citing that her overall income was not increasing and her initial SSI eligibility determination occurred before she received retirement benefits. Additionally, Haskin claimed improper maintenance of employment records and alleged unconstitutional discrimination against her as an SSI recipient who contributed to Social Security, unlike some others. The Court affirmed the Secretary's decision, finding that the reduction was based on substantial evidence and correct statutory interpretation, as retirement benefits are categorized as unearned income for SSI. It also dismissed her equal protection claim, emphasizing the general funding of SSI and judicial deference to legislative classifications, and denied her request for a jury trial, limiting review to the substantial evidence standard.

Social Security BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeRetirement BenefitsSSI Payment ReductionEqual Protection ClaimConstitutional LawAdministrative LawSubstantial Evidence ReviewDisability IncomeGovernment Assistance Programs
References
7
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

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Rollins

Roy Rollins filed an action under T.C.A. sec. 50-1025 to increase a previous compensation award. Initially, he was granted 75% loss of a leg, but the trial judge later increased it to 75% permanent-partial disability to his body as a whole, believing he made a mistake in the first ruling. The Supreme Court reviewed whether the judge could correct a mistake and if there was material evidence for increased disability. The court found that Rollins' testimony was substantially similar to his previous statements, indicating no actual increase in disability. Consequently, the judgment below was reversed, and the petition dismissed, as the statute does not permit correcting factual conclusions without proof of increased disability.

Workers' CompensationDisability IncreaseJudicial ErrorMaterial EvidencePrior AwardAppealTennessee LawPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical ConditionRes Judicata
References
5
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
Case No. ADJ7895581
Regular
Feb 01, 2013

RAVEENA WATERS vs. HOMETOWN BUFFET, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a finding regarding her average weekly earnings (AWE) in a workers' compensation case. The WCJ initially calculated AWE based on one year of actual earnings, which applicant argued was inequitable due to a significant increase in her income from concurrent employment in the final months before her injury. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the previous order, and returned the case for a new decision. This was because averaging the entire year's earnings did not accurately reflect her earning capacity due to a recent, substantial increase in hours and income from her other job.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRaveena WatersHometown BuffetAce American Insurance CompanyAverage Weekly Earnings (AWE)Cumulative InjuryRight WristElbowLeft WristConcurrent Employment
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,706 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