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. No. 97-10-0166; No. M2002-00555-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2002

Lisa Wade v. William Wade

This appeal concerns a modification of child support and the division of un-reimbursed medical and dental expenses following a divorce. The primary legal issue addressed by the Court of Appeals was the calculation of child support for military members, specifically how to account for non-taxable military allowances in accordance with Tennessee Child Support Guidelines. The court affirmed the increase in child support for 2001, with a modification to properly impute income for non-taxable military benefits. However, the child support award for 2002 was reversed and remanded for recalculation using the newly established imputation method. The court also affirmed the trial court's decision regarding the appellant's responsibility for half of un-reimbursed medical and dental expenses while still in the military, exercising its statutory power to modify terms despite an omission in the original marital dissolution agreement.

Child SupportMilitary IncomeNontaxable AllowancesIncome ImputationDivorce DecreeMarital Dissolution AgreementTennessee Child Support GuidelinesAppellate ReviewFamily LawStatutory Interpretation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wade v. Wade

This appeal arises from a modification of child support, which increased the Appellant's monthly support obligation and awarded the Appellee one-half of all unreimbursed medical and dental expenses while the Appellant serves in the military. The primary legal issue concerns the trial court's calculation of child support, specifically how to account for the non-taxable portions of the Appellant's military income in accordance with the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines. The court determined that non-taxable military pay and allowances constitute 'fringe benefits' and their value must be imputed as income to accurately reflect the obligor's true net income. The decision affirmed the modified child support award for the year 2001, but reversed and remanded the child support award for 2002 for recalculation consistent with the method of imputing income outlined in the opinion. Additionally, the court affirmed the order requiring the Appellant to pay half of unreimbursed medical and dental expenses during his military service, asserting the court's ongoing statutory authority to modify child support provisions.

Child SupportModificationMilitary IncomeNon-taxable AllowancesTennessee Child Support GuidelinesImputed IncomeUnreimbursed Medical ExpensesMarital Dissolution AgreementAppellate ReviewFamily Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. Goidel (In Re Goidel)

Bonnie Roberts, a bus driver, sued the Goidel debtors for defamation after they accused her of sexually abusing their daughter, Tara, on a preschool bus. This accusation was investigated but no charges were brought against Roberts. The Goidels filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, staying the defamation action. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Howard Schwartzberg, found no credible evidence of sexual abuse by Roberts. Exercising discretion, the court abstained from determining the amount of Roberts' claim and lifted the automatic stay, allowing the defamation suit to proceed in New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County, to judgment. The bankruptcy court will later determine if any judgment obtained by Roberts is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

DefamationBankruptcyNon-dischargeability of DebtSexual Abuse AllegationAutomatic StayAbstention DoctrineIntentional TortChapter 7Willful and Malicious InjuryState Court Action
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Jamesway Corp.

This case addresses whether claims arising from a debtor's rejection of non-residential real property leases, which were assumed in a prior Chapter 11 case (Jamesway I), are entitled to administrative priority in a subsequent Chapter 11 case (Jamesway II). Landlords sought administrative expense status for these claims, while Jamesway and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors argued they were general unsecured claims subject to statutory limitations. The court denied the Landlords' motion, holding that the claims do not qualify for administrative priority in Jamesway II because the leases were not assumed in this distinct second proceeding and did not provide an actual benefit to the Jamesway II estate. Consequently, the court granted Jamesway's cross-motion, classifying the Landlords' claims as general unsecured pre-petition claims, subject to the caps outlined in § 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

BankruptcyChapter 11Lease RejectionAdministrative ClaimUnsecured ClaimSummary JudgmentSuccessive Bankruptcy FilingsCreditor PriorityDebtor-in-PossessionEstate Preservation
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lovell v. Nashville Electric Service

This workers' compensation case involves Ms. Lovell, who suffered a work-related injury and received benefits under a non-work related disability program from her employer, Nashville Electric Service. She subsequently sought workers' compensation benefits for the same injury. The trial court initially awarded these benefits without allowing a full set-off for the previously paid non-work related benefits. This court previously remanded the case for determination of the set-off amount. On the current appeal, the court addresses the Chancellor's refusal to set off the balance of the non-work related benefits against partial permanent disability benefits. Citing prior precedent, the court reverses the trial court's judgment, asserting that all non-medical benefits paid under the non-work related claim should be set off from the total workers' compensation award. The case is again remanded for calculation of the credit and redetermination of compensation.

Workers' CompensationDisability BenefitsSet-offWork-Related InjuryNon-Work Related BenefitsTemporary Total DisabilityPartial Permanent DisabilityEmployer LiabilityRemandPrior Precedent
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Massey v. Evans

This case addresses whether military allowances, specifically Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) and Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS), should be included as 'income' for calculating child support obligations under New York law. The respondent father argued against their inclusion, citing their exclusion from federal taxable income and claiming they don't confer personal economic benefits. The court rejected these arguments, emphasizing the broad definition of 'income' within the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) and the distinct objectives of tax law versus child support. It concluded that BAH and BAS provide direct or indirect personal economic benefits and are uniformly considered income for child support in other states. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's decision to include these military allowances in the father's income.

Child SupportMilitary AllowancesIncome ImputationBAHBASNew York LawFamily Court ActDomestic Relations LawParental Support ObligationNontaxable Benefits
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re United States Lines, Inc.

The United States Lines, Inc. and its Reorganization Trust (Debtors) moved to deny a claim for pre- and post-judgment interest filed by the Public Administrator of the County of New York, Administrator of the Estate of Alfredo Valverde (Claimant). The Claimant's original wrongful death action against U.S.L. resulted in a state court judgment after the Debtors filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Cornelius Blackshear, found that the doctrines of full faith and credit, res judicata, and collateral estoppel were inapplicable, asserting its exclusive jurisdiction over the claims allowance process in bankruptcy. Applying Section 502(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, the court disallowed all post-petition interest, whether pre- or post-judgment, classifying it as unmatured interest. However, the court allowed the portion of the claim representing pre-petition, pre-judgment interest, clarifying that the date of judgment entry does not determine whether interest is 'unmatured' as of the petition date. Lastly, the court rejected the argument that the existence of indemnity insurance from the UK Club altered the allowability of the interest claim against the Debtors' estate.

Bankruptcy LawInterest on ClaimsPostpetition InterestPrepetition InterestUnmatured InterestChapter 11 ReorganizationClaims AllowanceRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelAutomatic Stay
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barbaro v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

The court addressed two consolidated CPLR Article 78 proceedings concerning whether petitioners' dismissal from the Department of Sanitation was effective prior to the vesting of their deferred retirement allowances. Petitioners, Waldeck and Barbaro, applied for the allowance, which vests if an employee is not dismissed within 30 days of application. Respondents, the Department of Sanitation and New York City Employees’ Retirement System, contended that petitioners were dismissed before the vesting date. The court found discrepancies in the dismissal documentation, a lack of explanation from a key witness (Commissioner Sexton), and insufficient proof that the dismissal notices were properly served according to Civil Service Law § 76. Consequently, the court concluded that the dismissals were not effective by the critical date, entitling petitioners to their vested retirement allowances.

Deferred Retirement AllowanceAdministrative DismissalCPLR Article 78Vested RightsDue ProcessService of NoticeCivil Service LawPublic EmployeesDepartment of SanitationNew York City Employees’ Retirement System
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Complaint of American President Lines, Ltd.

This case involves two related limitation proceedings (the "APL Action" and the "Hanjin Action") arising from a vessel collision in Korean waters between the President Washington (owned by American President Lines, Ltd. - APL) and the Hanjin Hong Kong (chartered by Hanjin Shipping Company Ltd. and owned by Highlight Navigation Corporation). The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, presided by Judge SWEET, addressed motions concerning forum non conveniens, transfer of venue, and choice of law. The Court granted APL's motions for summary judgment, dismissing Hanjin's affirmative defenses regarding forum non conveniens and venue transfer in the APL Action, and striking (with leave to replead) Hanjin's defense concerning Korean law. Concurrently, the Court denied Hanjin's motion to dismiss the Hanjin Action on forum non conveniens grounds, concluding that the balance of private and public interest factors did not strongly favor dismissal to a foreign forum or transfer to the Western District of Washington.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawVessel CollisionLimitation of LiabilityForum Non ConveniensTransfer of VenueChoice of LawCargo ClaimsInternational ShippingKorean Law
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 7,159 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