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

Farish v. Farish

George Rice Farish appealed an order denying his motion to modify child support, arguing a material and substantial change in circumstances following his 1987 divorce from Dorothy Farish. He cited a decline in his net resources, remarriage, the birth of another child, and increased private school tuition for the three children from his first marriage. The trial court denied the motion, finding no material and substantial change and affirming the original $4,500 monthly child support, along with awarding attorney's fees to Dorothy Farish. The appellate court upheld this decision, concluding that Farish's income had increased, his debt load had substantially decreased, and the other factors did not warrant a modification of the child support order.

Child Support ModificationFamily LawMaterial and Substantial ChangeNet ResourcesFinancial CircumstancesIncome IncreaseDebt ReductionAttorney's FeesTexas Family CodeAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 02-18-00307-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2019

Norbert Bolda v. Clivaller Bolda

Norbert Bolda appealed the trial court's order denying his petition to modify or terminate a spousal-maintenance order, which required him to pay his ex-wife, Clivaller Bolda, $1,600 monthly. Norbert contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding of no material and substantial change and that the spousal maintenance exceeded the statutory cap. The Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court primarily ruled that the spousal maintenance obligation was contractual alimony, not court-ordered spousal maintenance, and thus not subject to modification under Chapter 8 of the Texas Family Code, and alternatively, that Norbert failed to prove a material and substantial change in circumstances.

Spousal MaintenanceContractual AlimonyModification of OrderDivorce DecreeMaterial and Substantial ChangeDisability BenefitsTexas Family CodeAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionEnforcement of Contract
References
23
Case No. 13-22-00016-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2023

In the Interest of G.M.K., a Child v. the State of Texas

Jared appealed a trial court's order modifying his parent-child relationship with his child, G.M.K., and his child support obligation to Kathleen. Jared argued the trial court erred by denying his motion to modify child support, claiming a material and substantial change in circumstances due to his long-term disability and reduced income after two hip surgeries. He also asserted the trial court applied an incorrect standard and was biased. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Jared failed to provide sufficient evidence to accurately identify his net resources, thus failing to meet his burden to show a material and substantial change in circumstances. The court also found no reversible judicial bias.

Family lawChild support modificationAbuse of discretionNet resourcesBurden of proofJudicial biasAppellate reviewMaterial and substantial changeTexas Family CodeParent-child relationship
References
35
Case No. W2001-01350-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2002

William Perry v. Ricki Perry

This case involves an appeal from a Chancery Court decision concerning the continuation of rehabilitative alimony and attorney's fees following a divorce. The trial court initially awarded temporary rehabilitative alimony to Ms. Perry and later extended it for three additional years, also ordering Mr. Perry to pay Ms. Perry's attorney's fees. Mr. Perry appealed, arguing that Ms. Perry failed to demonstrate a substantial and material change in circumstances required for modification. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that a showing of a substantial and material change in circumstances was not necessary for the modification of a temporary, open-ended alimony award. The appellate court also upheld the trial court's award of attorney's fees, finding no abuse of discretion.

DivorceAlimonyRehabilitative AlimonyAttorney's FeesSpousal SupportMarital DissolutionAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionTemporary AlimonyChange in Circumstances
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Campbell v. Interstate Materials Corporation

The claimant, an operating manager for Interstate Materials Corporation, suffered injuries to his neck, back, and knees in August 2006 and a second lower back injury in April 2008. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially classified the claimant with a permanent total disability and struck the independent medical examiner's report. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, finding the IME report improperly precluded due to the examiner's hospitalization and reclassified the claimant with a permanent partial disability, equally apportioned between the two accidents. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in considering the IME report and that substantial evidence supported both the permanent partial disability classification and the equal apportionment of the disability.

Permanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardApportionment of DisabilityMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Cross-Examination RightsAbuse of DiscretionSubstantial EvidenceConflicting Medical Opinions
References
12
Case No. 05-17-01457-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2019

Charles Chang, M.D. v. Ashley Denny

Dr. Charles Chang performed brain surgery on Ashley Denny in 2006, leaving a cotton ball in her brain, which was discovered during a second surgery in 2011. Denny filed a medical liability claim against Dr. Chang in 2013, approximately seven years after the initial surgery and more than two years after discovering the foreign object. The trial court initially dismissed the claims as time-barred but later granted a new trial, where a jury found Dr. Chang negligent and Denny diligent in pursuing her claim. Dr. Chang appealed, challenging the denial of his motion for Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto (JNOV) on Denny's open courts defense. The dissenting opinion argues that Denny failed to exercise due diligence as a matter of law, given the 25-month delay in filing suit after discovery, and that her explanations (difficulty helping her lawyer and finding an expert) are insufficient to overcome the statute of limitations. The dissent concludes that the law should be applied neutrally, preventing recovery against Dr. Chang and suggesting Denny's recourse should be against her attorney.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsOpen Courts DoctrineDue DiligenceForeign ObjectSurgical ErrorJury VerdictJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Practice
References
15
Case No. W2018-01197-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2019

Karen Abrams Malkin v. Reed Lynn Malkin

This case involves a former husband's fourth petition to reduce or terminate his alimony in futuro obligation since the parties were divorced. The Court of Appeals previously reversed a reduction, finding the husband's retirement reasonable but that he failed to prove diminished financial ability or the wife's decreased need. In this appeal, the trial court again reduced the alimony, citing increased expenses for the husband and the wife's failure to maintain financial responsibility. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's reduction, finding that the husband failed to prove a substantial and material change in circumstances since the last order, as the claimed increased expenses were either anticipated or merely reclassified from corporate to personal. The court also denied the wife's counter-petition for an increase, finding no substantial change in circumstances to justify it. The previous alimony obligation of $2,870 per month was reinstated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings, including a determination of the wife's reasonable attorney's fees.

Alimony ModificationDivorceSpousal SupportChange in CircumstancesRes JudicataFinancial Ability to PayFinancial NeedAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewTennessee Law
References
39
Case No. CA 10-01067
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

TIMMONS, JOSEPH v. BARRETT PAVING MATERIALS, INC.

Joseph Timmons sustained injuries while working on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to a lawsuit alleging Labor Law violations. Barrett Paving then initiated a third-party action against Timmons' employer, Schneider Brothers Corporation, and a separate action against Colony Insurance Company. The Supreme Court granted Barrett's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims in Action No. 1, and denied Colony's motion in Action No. 2, declaring Barrett an additional insured. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 were inapplicable to the facts of the case. The court also affirmed Schneider's duty to defend Barrett and Colony's obligation to provide coverage to Barrett as an additional insured.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial Code RegulationsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured EndorsementConstruction Site SafetyGravity-Related Accidents
References
23
Case No. 01-07-00003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2008

in Re Bison Building Materials, Ltd.

Bison Building Materials, Ltd., a nonsubscriber to the Workers' Compensation Act, established an employee injury plan with an arbitration clause. Employee Tracy Sambrano was injured, received benefits, but then sued Bison for negligence, despite signing a post-injury waiver. The trial court denied Bison's motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, the court held that Sambrano had accepted the arbitration terms by continued employment and that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted state laws that would prevent enforcement. Consequently, the court conditionally granted mandamus relief to compel arbitration, finding Bison had not waived its right, and dismissed Sambrano's interlocutory appeal.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Texas General Arbitration Act (TGAA)Workers' Compensation NonsubscriberEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanERISA PreemptionMandamus ReliefInterlocutory AppealWaiver of ArbitrationContract Defenses
References
44
Case No. E2013-01734-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2014

Joshua Wayne Taylor v. Mary Katherine Taylor

This is a post-divorce case concerning the modification of a permanent parenting plan and other relief for the parties' daughter. Mother initially sought to modify the residential parenting schedule, and Father counterclaimed for a modified schedule and a change in custody designation. The trial court found no material change in circumstances to warrant a change in the primary residential parent but found a material change supporting a modification of the residential schedule, significantly increasing Mother's parenting time. Father appealed this decision, raising issues regarding the material change in circumstances, failure to designate him as the primary residential parent, and failure to find Mother in contempt. Mother raised issues concerning deviations from child support guidelines and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in the denial of a custody change, the modification of the parenting schedule, or the handling of contempt and child support issues.

DivorceChild CustodyParenting Plan ModificationResidential ScheduleMaterial Change in CircumstancesChild Support GuidelinesContempt of CourtAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 9,311 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