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

Grant v. Grant

This case addresses whether a husband can avoid a spousal support order by voluntarily retiring. The respondent, a 62-year-old bricklayer and construction worker, sought to terminate a $15 weekly support order for his 59-year-old wife after electing early retirement and receiving social security. The court found that eligibility for retirement does not negate the responsibility to support, emphasizing earning power over actual earnings. Citing precedents, the court asserted that a husband's obligation continues if he possesses sufficient means or earning capacity. The decision concluded that the respondent's early retirement appeared motivated by a desire to avoid support, especially since he could earn up to $1,800 annually under Social Security Law. The support order was continued, with an additional $3 weekly payment ordered to cover arrears.

AlimonySpousal SupportVoluntary RetirementEarning CapacitySocial Security BenefitsArrearsFamily CourtDomestic RelationsSupport Order ModificationAbility to Earn
References
6
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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 1986

Isabellita S. v. John S.

This case addresses a pregnant petitioner's request for spousal support from her separated but still-married husband. The respondent argued he should not be liable for support or pregnancy-related expenses, claiming the child was not his and that her unemployment due to pregnancy was a 'voluntarily induced condition.' The court dismissed these arguments, asserting that pregnancy is a legitimate medical condition impacting expenses and ability to work, and distinguishing it for spousal support would violate equal protection. Furthermore, the court denied the respondent's request to introduce evidence challenging paternity or to order fetal blood tests, deeming them irrelevant to the spousal support petition for the wife. Ultimately, the court ordered the respondent to pay $40 per week for the petitioner's support, noting that the order could be reviewed after the child's birth.

Spousal SupportPregnancy DiscriminationEqual ProtectionPresumption of LegitimacyPaternity TestingFamily LawMarital SeparationDisability BenefitsUnemployment BenefitsConstitutional Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2011

K.B.J. v. T.J.

This is a contested divorce case where the Wife appealed the trial court's decision concerning primary residential parent, allocation of marital debt, and denial of spousal support. The trial court had found the Husband guilty of inappropriate marital conduct but made him the primary residential parent and denied spousal support to the Wife, while allocating significant marital debt to her. The appellate court reversed the decision on primary residential parent status and parenting schedule, designating the Wife as the primary residential parent with final decision-making authority. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding the allocation of marital debt to the Wife and the denial of spousal support, citing the Husband's financial burden and the Wife's earning capacity. The case was remanded to the trial court to redetermine child support based on the modified parenting schedule.

DivorceChild CustodyParenting PlanMarital DebtSpousal SupportAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionPrimary Residential ParentParenting TimeFinancial Responsibility
References
15
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. CA 12-01799
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2013

ZUFALL, KATHERINE v. ZUFALL, KARL

This case involves an appeal in a divorce action where the defendant husband challenged the spousal maintenance award, its duration, and child support calculations. The Appellate Division modified the judgment by reducing the duration of spousal maintenance to seven years and correcting a mathematical error in the defendant's net child support obligation. The court affirmed the maintenance amount, the method of calculating child support, the equitable distribution of the defendant's deferred compensation account as marital property, and the award of attorney fees to the plaintiff. The court rejected the defendant's arguments regarding the failure to include a cohabitation clause for maintenance termination and the deduction of maintenance from gross income for child support calculations. This judgment highlights considerations of marital duration, earning capacities, and the statutory presumption of marital property in divorce proceedings.

DivorceSpousal MaintenanceChild SupportEquitable DistributionDeferred CompensationAttorney FeesMarital PropertyPrenuptial AgreementStatutory FactorsAppellate Review
References
13
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. 2017 NY Slip Op 01537 [148 AD3d 679]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2017

Gafycz v. Gafycz

This case involves an appeal by the defendant, Bohdan Gafycz, from portions of a judgment of divorce issued by the Supreme Court, Orange County. The original judgment awarded the plaintiff, Sophia Gafycz, 100% of certain marital properties, 25% of other properties, monthly nondurational spousal support, child support arrears, a fine for contempt of court, and counsel fees. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the Supreme Court's discretion regarding spousal maintenance, imputation of income to the defendant for child support calculations (noting the defendant's evasiveness and asset secretion), and the equitable distribution of marital property, specifically the awards concerning properties in Chester, Pond Eddy, and Port Jervis. The court also upheld the finding that the defendant failed to prove that his interest in certain properties was separate property.

DivorceSpousal MaintenanceChild Support ArrearsEquitable DistributionMarital PropertyImputed IncomeContempt of CourtCounsel FeesAppellate ReviewCredibility Determination
References
10
Case No. 13-02-090-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2003

Cheryl Ann Smith v. Gary Smith

Cheryl Smith, the appellant, appeals the trial court's award of spousal maintenance to Gary Smith, the appellee, in their divorce proceedings. The appellant challenges several findings of the trial court, including that the appellee lacks sufficient property, is unable to support himself due to an incapacitating physical disability, and that there is a causal link between his disability and his inability to secure appropriate employment. The background reveals that Gary suffered a cerebral aneurism in 1974, which resulted in a physical disability affecting his fine motor movements and causing severe headaches, preventing him from working. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision under an abuse of discretion standard, examining the evidence supporting the findings regarding Gary's disability, his inability to work, and his minimum reasonable needs. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of spousal maintenance.

DivorceSpousal MaintenancePhysical DisabilityIncapacitating DisabilityEarning AbilityAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewFamily LawTexasCommunity Property
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 6,895 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