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. M1998-00919-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2001

Walter Hanselman, Jr. v. Linda Hanselman

This appeal concerns a father's attempt to reduce his child support and spousal support obligations after a decline in income due to employer cutbacks in overtime. The father, Walter Jacob Hanselman, Jr., filed a petition in Hickman County Chancery Court seeking a downward modification. The trial court denied the petition, finding he failed to establish a significant variance in child support and a substantial change in circumstances for spousal support. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court's findings, concluding that Mr. Hanselman did not demonstrate a significant income variance or a material change in circumstances. Therefore, the judgment denying the reduction in support obligations was affirmed.

Child Support ModificationSpousal SupportOvertime IncomeIncome AveragingParental ObligationsDivorce DecreeTennessee LawAppellate ReviewMaterial Change in CircumstancesFrivolous Appeal
References
34
Case No. 02A01-9802-CV-00050
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 1999

Kevin Kathleen Stacey v. Donald Ray Stacey

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

Bland v. Gellman

A claimant had two workers' compensation claims, one managed by the Special Fund for Reopened Cases and the other by Travelers Insurance Company, with liability equally apportioned. The claimant's treating physician requested a variance for aquatic therapy, which both carriers denied. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge approved the treatment, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, asserting that the variance request form (MG-2) was not properly served on the Board and that the review request was untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the MG-2 form was timely filed with the Board, referencing both claim numbers, and that the request for review of the denial was also timely. The court concluded that the Board's determination lacked substantial evidence and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Variance RequestAquatic TherapyClaim DenialMG-2 FormTimely FilingAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesTravelers Insurance CompanySubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MetroPCS New York, LLC v. Village of East Hills

MetroPCS New York, LLC filed a complaint against the Village of East Hills, its Zoning Board of Appeals, and Village Clerk, challenging the denial of its application for a special exemption permit and variances for installing cellular antennas. MetroPCS argued the denial violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by unreasonably discriminating against it and not being supported by substantial evidence. The court found that the ZBA's decision lacked substantial evidence regarding aesthetic impact, property values, and the existence of a significant coverage gap for MetroPCS's services. Therefore, the court granted MetroPCS's motion for summary judgment, ordering the Village to issue the required permits and variances.

Telecommunications Act of 1996Zoning Board of AppealsWireless Communication FacilitiesSpecial Exemption PermitVariancesSummary JudgmentSubstantial Evidence ReviewUnreasonable DiscriminationSignificant Coverage GapAesthetic Impact
References
27
Case No. E2012-02499-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2014

Melissa L. Blackshear (Thompson) v. Stephen D. Blackshear

This appeal concerns post-divorce child support modification. The father petitioned to reduce his child support obligation due to a significant decrease in income. The trial court modified the father's child support from $2,000 to $73 per month, awarded a $21,124 judgment to the father for overpayment, and granted him $10,000 in attorney's fees. The mother appealed, challenging the existence of a significant variance and the trial court's awards. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's ruling regarding the father's income calculation for child support, finding it unclear whether income was properly determined, and remanded the case for specific findings of fact and reconsideration of the reimbursement and attorney's fee awards.

Child SupportModificationIncome VarianceDivorce LawPost-Divorce IssuesAlimonyCapital GainsBusiness IncomeAttorney's FeesReimbursement
References
21
Case No. 3041 0151
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of West v. Titan Express, Inc.

The claimant appealed a November 6, 2012 decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board that denied a variance request for certain medical injections. While the appeal was pending, the Board issued an amended decision in April 2013, superseding the original but reaching the same ultimate conclusion. The Court determined that the Board acted within its statutory authority in issuing the amended decision, as the appeal had not yet been perfected and no prejudice resulted. However, because the amended decision superseded the initial one, the Court found the pending appeal moot. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without costs.

Workers' Compensation LawMedical VarianceWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionMootness DoctrineBoard JurisdictionAmended DecisionProcedural IssuesClaimant AppealTitan Express Inc.
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fraioli's Hydro-Power, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection

The petitioner, a truck washing business, sought CPLR article 78 relief after its request for a variance to use New York City's water supply during a Stage II Drought Emergency was denied. The petitioner argued that it was denied a hearing and that the denial was arbitrary and capricious, citing economic hardship and previous variances. The court, presided by Judge David B. Saxe, rejected both arguments, finding that a formal hearing was not constitutionally required for a variance denial by an administrative agency. Furthermore, the court found the denial of the variance rational, stating that truck washing is not an essential use, alternatives exist, and granting a variance would contradict water conservation efforts and afford preferential treatment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Drought EmergencyWater ConservationVariance DenialCPLR Article 78Administrative DiscretionDue ProcessEconomic HardshipNon-Essential BusinessJudicial ReviewMunicipal Regulations
References
6
Case No. W2001-00302-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2002

Terri Jackson v. Danny Jackson

This case involves an appeal concerning the calculation of an obligor parent's net income for child support purposes. Appellant Danny L. Jackson sought a reduction in his child support obligations, arguing that temporary living expenses incurred due to a job relocation and Alabama state income taxes should be deducted from his gross income. The trial court denied his motion, finding no significant variance existed under the child support guidelines. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that the guidelines' provision for deducting expenses applies only to self-employment income, not to employees like the Appellant. Thus, the lower court did not err in refusing the deductions.

Child SupportNet Income CalculationGross IncomeTemporary Living ExpensesIncome Tax DeductionSignificant VarianceAppellate ReviewMarital Dissolution AgreementDivorce ProceedingsObligor Parent
References
3
Case No. 529971
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2021

Matter of McLean v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.

Claimant Allen McLean sustained a work-related injury to his lower back in May 2013. His treating physician, Robert Tiso, requested a variance for medical marihuana to treat chronic pain, which the employer denied. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially upheld the denial, but the Workers' Compensation Board subsequently modified this decision, granting the variance request. The employer appealed the Board's decision to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's determination to grant the variance was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation LawChronic Pain TreatmentMedical Marihuana AuthorizationVariance Denial OverturnedAppellate Division Third DepartmentMedical NecessityEmployer LiabilityTreatment Guidelines DeviationLumbar Disc DegenerationRadiculopathy
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07470 [176 AD3d 1370]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2019

Matter of Kluge v. Town of Tonawanda

In 1997, James Kluge, a police officer, sustained work-related injuries, leading to a permanent partial disability classification. In 2017, his treating physician requested authorization for medical marihuana to treat chronic pain, which was initially denied by the employer's carrier. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge approved the variance, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, stating that a variance could not be approved for treatment already rendered. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, agreeing that a variance cannot cover past treatment but remitting the matter to the Board to consider the merits of Kluge's request for *prospective* medical marihuana treatment.

Chronic PainMedical MarihuanaWorkers' Compensation BenefitsVariance RequestPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical Treatment GuidelinesProspective TreatmentRemittalAppellate ReviewTreating Physician
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,882 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