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

Insurance Co. of State of the Pennsylvania v. Moore

This appeal addresses whether a worker's compensation carrier is entitled to a proportionate reduction in supplemental income benefits (SIBs) equal to the percentage of reduction for impairment income benefits (IIBs) for a prior compensable injury under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Appellant, Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, sought an 11/17ths reduction in Appellee John H. Moore's SIBs, matching the reduction applied to his IIBs for a previous back injury. A hearing officer granted the IIB reduction but denied the SIB reduction. The trial court upheld this decision. The appellate court reversed, holding that Texas Labor Code § 408.084 is unambiguous and mandates that both IIBs and SIBs be reduced by the same proportion when contribution is warranted for a prior injury. Consequently, Appellant is entitled to an 11/17ths reduction of Appellee’s supplemental income benefits.

Workers' CompensationSupplemental Income Benefits (SIBs)Impairment Income Benefits (IIBs)Prior Compensable InjuryProportionate ReductionStatutory InterpretationTexas Labor CodeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCommission Appeals Panel
References
24
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. 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. E2009-00018-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2009

Michael D. Reed v. Darla Carden Steadham

The father left his salaried employment to start his own construction business, which led to a significant decrease in his annual income and subsequent reduction in child support payments. The mother petitioned the Trial Court to find the father voluntarily underemployed and impute additional income. However, the Trial Court found the father was not willfully unemployed and adjusted child support based on his current income. The mother appealed this decision, arguing the Trial Court erred in its calculation of child support and in not including the father's pension rollover as gross income. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, concluding that the mother failed to prove the father was voluntarily unemployed and that a retirement rollover used for business capitalization was not personal income for child support purposes.

Child SupportVoluntary UnderemploymentImputed IncomeEarning CapacityParental ObligationRetirement RolloverGross IncomeFamily LawAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2012

In re the Claim of Schiavo

The claimant, a 70.5-year-old member of Teamsters Local 456, began receiving pension income in 2007 while still employed. After being laid off in December 2010, he sought unemployment insurance benefits. His benefits were subsequently reduced to zero under Labor Law § 600 (7) due to his pension income. The Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board upheld this determination. The claimant appealed, arguing that Labor Law § 600 (7) was either inapplicable or unconstitutional as applied, given that his pension was a mandatory distribution and he was ready to work. The court disagreed, affirming previous decisions that found the reduction of unemployment benefits due to employer-funded pension income to be rational and consistent with the law's purpose of providing income to unemployed workers without earned income.

Unemployment benefitsPension incomeLabor Law § 600(7)Benefit reductionConstitutionalityMandatory distributionAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardEarned income
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 1982

Hodge v. D'Elia

This case involves a proceeding under CPLR article 78 to review a determination by the State Commissioner of Social Services. The determination affirmed a local agency's decision to reduce the petitioner's public assistance grant. This reduction was for the recoupment of income tax refunds and workers' compensation benefits received by the petitioner. Although the court agreed that the petitioner willfully withheld information, it found that the respondents failed to evaluate if the recoupment rate would cause undue hardship. Consequently, the court annulled the determination and remitted the matter for further proceedings to assess undue hardship.

Public AssistanceRecoupmentIncome Tax RefundsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsUndue HardshipCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewFair HearingAnnulmentRemittal
References
1
Case No. W2001-00302-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2002

Terri Jackson v. Danny Jackson

This case involves an appeal concerning the calculation of an obligor parent's net income for child support purposes. Appellant Danny L. Jackson sought a reduction in his child support obligations, arguing that temporary living expenses incurred due to a job relocation and Alabama state income taxes should be deducted from his gross income. The trial court denied his motion, finding no significant variance existed under the child support guidelines. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that the guidelines' provision for deducting expenses applies only to self-employment income, not to employees like the Appellant. Thus, the lower court did not err in refusing the deductions.

Child SupportNet Income CalculationGross IncomeTemporary Living ExpensesIncome Tax DeductionSignificant VarianceAppellate ReviewMarital Dissolution AgreementDivorce ProceedingsObligor Parent
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cianciulli v. Perales

This case concerns a petitioner's challenge under CPLR article 78 against determinations by the New York State Commissioner of Social Services. The Commissioner affirmed a local agency's decision to discontinue the petitioner's Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) grant due to receiving a lump-sum income exceeding household needs. The Commissioner also affirmed that a $2,600 loan repayment was not a life-threatening circumstance, thus not deductible from the lump-sum income for AFDC reapplication. The court confirmed both determinations, finding the petitioner's arguments lacked merit. It rejected claims that regulation 18 NYCRR 352.29 [h] violates constitutional duties or statutory mandates, or creates an invalid conclusive presumption of income availability. The court upheld the Commissioner's interpretation that life-threatening situations occur after lump-sum receipt, not for prior debts, even if those debts were for life-threatening circumstances at the time they were incurred.

AFDCLump-sum incomePublic assistanceSocial Services LawLife-threatening circumstanceLoan repaymentAdministrative reviewConstitutional lawStatutory interpretationEligibility criteria
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sandra L. v. John L.

The petitioner filed a violation of support petition against the respondent for failing to comply with a court order requiring him to pay $200 weekly support for herself and three children. The respondent's defense was that he was out of work due to a union strike, preventing him from meeting his obligation. The court determined that participation in a legal strike does not constitute a voluntary reduction of income and that the respondent had shown good cause for the reduction. Furthermore, the court found that the respondent demonstrated good cause for failing to prospectively seek a total reduction of his support obligation in Richmond County, given his prior actions in Orange County. Consequently, the court canceled the respondent's support obligation for the strike period from January 9 to April 9, 1984.

Child Support ArrearsLegal StrikeVoluntary Income ReductionNational Labor Relations ActFamily Court ActSupport ObligationGood Cause DefenseRetroactive Arrears CancellationPayroll Deduction OrderInter-County Jurisdiction
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,189 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