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. E2014-00717-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2015

Heather Walker Sellers v. Billy Joe Walker

This case concerns the modification of a child support award. The trial court determined the self-employed father's income based on deposits into his personal bank account rather than his federal tax returns. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's method of determining income based on bank deposits and the mother's income determination. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's child support calculation due to a mathematical error in the father's income calculation and its failure to consider his self-employment taxes. The case was remanded for recalculation of child support based on the correct monthly income for the father and consideration of self-employment taxes.

Child Support ModificationIncome DeterminationSelf-Employment IncomeBank Deposits as IncomeTax Returns vs. Bank DepositsRule 59 MotionAppellate ReviewMathematical ErrorSelf-Employment TaxesChild Support Guidelines
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Hafley

This case concerns an appeal by Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company against an award of Supplemental Income Benefits (SIBs) by the Worker’s Compensation Commission to Richard A. Hafley. Hartford challenged the Commission's calculation of Hafley's self-employment income based on net income and disputed the award of attorney's fees. Hafley cross-appealed on jurisdictional grounds, arguing improper venue. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, ruling that the venue statute was not jurisdictional and upholding the Commission's discretion in using net income for wage calculation for self-employed individuals. The court also affirmed the award of attorney's fees to Hafley.

Worker's CompensationSupplemental Income BenefitsSelf-Employment IncomeNet Income CalculationAttorney's FeesJurisdictionVenue DisputeTexas Labor CodeStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. 07-21-00008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2021

Jeffrey J. Markey v. Kathryn L. Markey

Jeffrey J. Markey appealed a final divorce decree from Kathryn L. Markey, challenging the child support calculation and the division of community property due to unvalued income tax liabilities. The Court of Appeals, Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo, found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering Jeffrey's earning capacity and various income sources beyond just current earnings for child support. The court also held that it was not an abuse of discretion to divide the community estate without first calculating income tax liability, nor to disregard Jeffrey's estimates for tax liabilities. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

DivorceChild SupportProperty DivisionIncome Tax LiabilityEarning CapacityCommunity EstateAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Family LawMemorandum Opinion
References
11
Case No. 03-02-00107-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2002

Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company/Richard Hafley v. Richard Hafley/Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company

Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company appealed an award of Supplemental Income Benefits (SIBs) by the Worker's Compensation Commission to Richard A. Hafley. The district court affirmed the award and granted attorney's fees to Hafley. Hartford argued the Commission improperly calculated Hafley's self-employment income based on net rather than gross income, insufficient evidence supported the award, and Hafley was not entitled to attorney's fees. Hafley cross-appealed, challenging the district court's jurisdiction due to an incorrect county for filing the appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the venue requirement was not jurisdictional and upholding the Commission's discretion in calculating wages for self-employed claimants and the award of attorney's fees.

Supplemental Income Benefits (SIBs)Self-Employment IncomeNet vs. Gross Income CalculationAttorney's Fees AwardJurisdiction and VenueStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DiscretionAppellate ProcedureLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceFactual Sufficiency of Evidence
References
10
Case No. 05-08-00438-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2010

In the Interest of P.C.S.

This dissenting and concurring opinion, authored by Justice Bea Ann Smith, addresses the contentious issue of whether an inheritance should be classified as 'income' for child support calculations under the Texas Family Code. Justice Smith argues against the majority's interpretation, asserting that an inheritance is an asset, not income, and therefore should not be included in the initial calculation of net resources as per section 154.062(b)(5). Instead, she posits that an inheritance is an 'additional factor' under section 154.123(b)(3) that allows trial courts to adjust child support guidelines. The dissent concludes that the trial court's decision, which treated Father's $400,000 inheritance as an asset to justify increased child support rather than including it as income, correctly harmonizes the relevant family code sections.

Child SupportInheritanceTexas Family CodeStatutory InterpretationIncome DefinitionNet ResourcesDissenting OpinionFamily LawFinancial ResourcesChild Support Guidelines
References
5
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Costanzo v. Costanzo

The petitioner sought an upward modification of child support and counsel fees. The Family Court of Niagara County denied the petitioner’s objections to a Hearing Examiner’s order. The appellate court reversed this decision, agreeing with the petitioner that the Hearing Examiner erred by not including the respondent’s lump sum workers’ compensation and Social Security benefits when calculating income. The matter has been remitted to Family Court to redetermine child support based on an accurate calculation of the respondent's income and to address the petitioner's entitlement to counsel fees.

Child SupportUpward ModificationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security BenefitsIncome CalculationCounsel FeesFamily CourtAppellate ReviewReversalRemittal
References
0
Case No. E2012-01726-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2013

Sharon Clayman Sitz v. William Grant Sitz

Sharon Clayman Sitz (Wife) sued William Grant Sitz (Husband) for divorce after 16 years of marriage. The trial court awarded Wife a divorce based on inappropriate marital conduct, adopted her parenting plan, and imputed income to Husband due to voluntary underemployment for child support calculation. Husband appealed, challenging the parenting plan, underemployment finding, imputed income calculation, grounds for divorce, marital asset division, and attorney fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, with a modification regarding the simultaneous transfer of marital property and an equalizing payment. Costs on appeal were taxed to Husband, and the case was remanded for enforcement.

DivorceChild CustodyChild SupportSpousal ConductVoluntary UnderemploymentProperty DivisionAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewParenting PlanDomestic Relations
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Old Republic Insurance Co. v. Rodriguez

Inez Rodriguez, an employee of Asarco, sustained work-related injuries in 1991 and 1993, leading to disputes over his impairment rating and eligibility for supplemental income benefits. Conflicting medical opinions resulted in the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission finding a 15 percent impairment, while Rodriguez's doctor initially rated it 31 percent. Rodriguez successfully sued Old Republic Insurance Company in district court, with a jury awarding him a 30 percent impairment rating and supplemental income benefits, correcting a clerical error in his doctor's initial calculation. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict, finding sufficient evidence and that correcting a clerical error in an impairment calculation was permissible under the Texas Labor Code.

Impairment RatingSupplemental Income BenefitsJury VerdictMedical TestimonyClerical ErrorTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceAMA GuidelinesSpinal Injury
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,881 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