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

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

Leonard v. Leonard

This case concerns appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Delaware County, entered on September 19, 1983. The first order dismissed the respondent's cross-petition for a downward modification of a prior support order. The second order found the respondent in willful violation of a December 9, 1982 support order, fixing arrears at $665. The respondent had previously received a suspended 60-day jail sentence conditioned on keeping support payments current. The respondent argued that his unemployment and reduced workers' compensation benefits justified a modification and that the finding of willful violation was erroneous. The appellate court conducted a careful review of the record and affirmed the Family Court’s findings and determinations without costs.

Family LawChild SupportSupport OrderArrearsWillful ViolationModificationAppealUnemploymentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 1985

Wolf v. Wolf

In two support proceedings, the petitioner mother appealed two orders. The first order, entered September 7, 1984, denied her petition for an upward modification of child support. The second order, entered May 3, 1985, denied her full reimbursement for certain child counseling expenses. The Family Court's decisions were affirmed on appeal. The court properly denied a general increase in the father's child support obligation and directed the mother to seek payment for counseling expenses through the father's medical insurance coverage.

child supportupward modificationcounseling expensesparental obligationsFamily Lawappellate reviewOrange County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 1994

Jarvis v. Jarvis

Respondent appealed a Family Court order dismissing his application to reduce child support payments from $60 to $25 per week, citing a job loss and reduced income. The petitioner had also filed a violation petition seeking an increase in child support. The Hearing Examiner and Family Court found insufficient grounds for modification, concluding that respondent had an imputed earning capacity as a carpenter/construction worker. The court found respondent delinquent in payments, attempted to conceal employment, and failed to seek unemployment benefits, leading to a discounting of his claims. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, stating that respondent failed to establish a change in circumstances warranting a downward modification.

Child SupportSupport ModificationImputed IncomeArrearagesConcealment of IncomeUnemployment BenefitsFamily LawAppealFinancial DisclosureDelinquent Payments
References
0
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. 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

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

Clark v. Jamison

This case concerns an appeal filed by William Thomas Clark against Martha Hill Jamison, challenging the denial of his motion to decrease child support payments. Clark argued that his financial circumstances had substantially changed and that the existing support was not in compliance with guidelines. The trial court denied the modification, finding that the children's needs had not decreased and Clark's financial resources remained substantial. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was no abuse of discretion in maintaining the child support order.

Child Support ModificationParental ObligationFinancial CircumstancesBest Interest of the ChildAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTexas Family LawChild Support GuidelinesMaterial Change in CircumstancesAgreed Order
References
21
Case No. 03-12-00108-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2013

Charles Norris v. Melissa M. Norris

Charles Norris appeals from a district court order increasing his child-support obligations to his ex-wife, Melissa M. Norris. The district court found a material and substantial change in circumstances warranted modification and set the child support at $885 per month. Charles argued insufficient evidence for modification and improper calculation of child support based on earning capacity and age, as well as the determination of his net monthly resources. The appellate court affirmed the district court's modification order, finding legally and factually sufficient evidence for the modification and the child support amount, including the deemed income from Charles's assets.

child supportmodificationTexas Court of Appealsincome determinationassetsearning capacityincarcerationmaterial change in circumstancesparental obligationsdivorce decree
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayes v. Hayes

This case concerns an appeal from the Family Court of Saratoga County's dismissal of a petitioner's application to hold the respondent in willful violation of a child support order. The respondent, who had accumulated significant arrears and made no payments since September 1999, claimed disability due to an automobile accident but failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support his inability to pay. The Hearing Examiner erred by finding no willful violation and by sua sponte reducing the respondent's child support obligation without a cross-petition or adequate proof of changed circumstances. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granted the petitioner's application, and remitted the matter for further proceedings, concluding that a willful violation was warranted and the downward modification was improper.

Child SupportWillful ViolationSupport ArrearsDisability ClaimMedical EvidenceDownward ModificationFamily CourtAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofNonpayment
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 7,197 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