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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

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

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Daniel E. Gill, Thomas C. McDermott, and Jay T. Holmes, retired Bausch & Lomb (B & L) executives and participants in the B & L Supplemental Retirement Income Plan I (SERP I), challenged the termination of their monthly benefits and conversion to lump sums following a change of control at B & L. The court found that B & L Human Resources personnel acted as unauthorized fiduciaries in 2007 by interpreting the plan and terminating benefits. The subsequent 2008 decision by the Compensation Committee was also found flawed due to structural conflicts of interest, procedural violations, and abdication of fiduciary responsibility. The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, concluding that the termination of benefits and lump-sum payments violated ERISA and vacated both decisions.

ERISA LitigationEmployee Retirement Income Security ActFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentConflict of InterestPlan AdministrationBenefit DenialChange of ControlLump Sum PaymentsProcedural Violations
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

In this divorce action, the defendant moved for pendente lite relief, including child support, maintenance, and counsel fees. The court, noting discrepancies in the plaintiff's reported income and the parties' lifestyle, imputed income to the plaintiff. The decision granted the defendant $2,000 per month in temporary maintenance and $1,200 per month in child support, deviating from statutory guidelines based on the defendant's needs. The plaintiff was also ordered to complete the transfer of vehicle titles and obtain insurance, and pay $7,500 in interim counsel fees to the defendant's attorney.

DivorceChild SupportTemporary MaintenanceCounsel FeesPendente Lite ReliefMarital PropertyImputed IncomeSpousal SupportFinancial DisclosureDomestic Relations Law
References
20
Case No. E2014-00717-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2015

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

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

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Defendants Shalom Rabkin and Mendy Gorodetsky, business partners and owners of Asbestways Services Corporation, pled guilty to income tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201). From 2006 to 2008, they underreported income and skimmed funds for personal expenses, owing $188,757 (Gorodetsky) and $148,999 (Rabkin) to the IRS. Judge Jack B. Weinstein sentenced each defendant to four months imprisonment, followed by six months home confinement and three years of supervised release, taking into account the welfare of their fifty employees and their families. Restitution was ordered for both, but no fines were levied. Sentences were staggered to allow for business continuity.

Income Tax EvasionCriminal SentencingFederal GuidelinesStaggered SentencesBusiness ContinuityEmployee WelfareRestitutionHome ConfinementSupervised ReleaseCorporate Crime
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case addresses whether proceeds from a personal injury settlement should be considered income for child support purposes under Family Court Act § 413 (1) (b) (5). The petitioner, who receives a structured settlement, objects to a Hearing Examiner's decision that excluded these funds from his income calculation. The respondent argues that the court has discretion to include such funds, citing the "shall not be limited to" language in the statute. The court agrees that the non-recurring payments from the settlement are not income, but finds that the recurring monthly payments can be considered income. The petitioner's objection is partially granted, and the case is remanded for the Hearing Examiner to amend the child support order accordingly.

Child Support CalculationPersonal Injury SettlementIncome DefinitionFamily Court ActStructured SettlementNon-recurring PaymentsDiscretionary IncomeRemandPaternityWestchester County
References
5
Case No. 02A01-9802-CV-00050
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 1999

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

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

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The dissenting opinion argues against the majority's finding of ambiguity in an insurance policy, asserting that the policy clearly intended the complainant to receive a monthly income benefit equal to 60% of their monthly wages. This benefit was to be offset by amounts received from Social Security and Workmen’s Compensation, with a minimum monthly payment of $50.00 from the insurer. The judge contends that allowing the complainant to settle a Workmen’s Compensation claim in a lump sum and then not apply that amount monthly would effectively rewrite the original contract. This interpretation would force the defendant insurer to assume greater risks and provide benefits not contemplated or contracted for in the policy. The dissent emphasizes that such a strained construction would disrupt a clear, beneficial, and desirable agreement between the parties.

Insurance policyDisability benefitsWorkmen's CompensationSocial SecurityLump sum settlementContract interpretationPremiumRisk assumptionDissenting opinionMonthly income
References
1
Case No. 03A01-9701-GS-00030
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 1997

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The case involves an appeal by Peggy Elaine Jackson Hall (mother) against Mark Richard Hall (father) regarding a child support order. Initially, child support was set at $600/month in 1991, increased to $700/month two years later, and then to $1200/month in October 1996, effective June 1, 1996. The mother appealed, contending the $1200 increase was insufficient under Tennessee's child support guidelines. The appellate court reviewed the calculation of the father's net income, specifically addressing the non-inclusion of depreciation as a deductible expense, which the trial judge had overlooked. The court found that depreciation should not be deducted and increased the child support award to $1300/month, making the excess retroactive to January 1, 1995.

Child SupportFamily LawMarital DissolutionIncome CalculationDepreciationCapital GainsChild Support GuidelinesAppellate ReviewRetroactive SupportJudicial Discretion
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,659 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