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. E2015-00908-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2016

Jason Lamar Howard v. Cynthia Teresa Wallin Howard

The Father, Jason Lamar Howard, appealed the trial court's modification of a permanent parenting plan, child support, and its refusal to hold the Mother, Cynthia Teresa Wallin Howard, in contempt. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision regarding criminal contempt. However, it vacated and remanded the issues concerning the parenting plan and civil contempt due to insufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law by the trial court. The appellate court found that the Father had adequate notice of the Mother's intent to seek an increase in parenting time. The case is remanded for the trial court to provide a complete parenting plan with sufficient findings and conclusions for both the parenting plan and the civil contempt petition.

Post-divorceParenting plan modificationChild supportContempt of courtDue processFindings of factConclusions of lawAppellate reviewRemandTennessee law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. Uselton

Clarence Howard, an inmate at Marion County jail, sought workers' compensation after injuring his back while performing work at the county landfill. The Chancellor ruled that Howard, as a convict, could not form a contract of employment with Marion County and thus was not an employee under workers' compensation laws. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which cited established legal precedents that inmates performing work during their imprisonment are generally not considered employees for workers' compensation purposes, as they cannot enter into a true contract of hire involving remuneration. The Court found no evidence of an agreement for Howard to be compensated by Marion County for his services.

Inmate EmploymentPrisoner RightsWorkers' Compensation EligibilityContract of HireEmployee StatusMarion County LawTennessee Supreme CourtDUI ConvictionLandfill InjuryRemuneration Requirement
References
6
Case No. 03A01-9811-CV-00374
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 1999

Howard v. Howard

The father appealed the trial court's order setting child support, finding him in contempt for unpaid medical bills and late support, and awarding attorney's fees to the mother. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, including its refusal to deduct a business loss from the father's income due to insufficient proof of reasonable expenses. The court also upheld the upward deviation in child support based on the father's lack of visitation. Additionally, the finding of contempt and the award of attorney's fees to the mother were affirmed. The case was affirmed and remanded.

Child SupportContempt of CourtAttorney's FeesIncome CalculationBusiness ExpensesUpward DeviationVisitation RightsAppellate ReviewMarital DissolutionParental Obligations
References
5
Case No. 866 F.Supp.2d 196
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2011

Howard v. MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Wendell Howard, an African-American locomotive engineer trainee, sued his former employer, MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad, for racial discrimination and harassment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, following his termination from a training program. Howard alleged discriminatory treatment by his instructors regarding test answers and derogatory remarks, and that his termination for leaving his worksite without proper authorization and insubordination was pretextual. He also claimed other non-African-American trainees were not disciplined similarly. The court granted summary judgment in favor of MTA Metro-North, finding that Howard failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that the employer's stated non-discriminatory reasons for termination were a pretext for racial discrimination. Subsequently, Howard filed a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), citing alleged mistakes, fraud by the defendants, and newly discovered evidence concerning other trainees. The court denied this motion, concluding that Howard's arguments were either rearguments of prior points, lacked clear and convincing evidence of fraud, or the "new evidence" was either available during discovery or not sufficiently convincing to warrant relief.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Summary JudgmentPro Se LitigantMotion to Vacate JudgmentRule 60(b)Pretext for DiscriminationLocomotive Engineer Training Program
References
66
Case No. 21-0941
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2023

Pnc Mortgage, a Division of Pnc Bank, N.A. Successor to National City Bank and National City Mortgage, a Division of National City Bank of Indiana v. John Howard and Amy Howard

The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed a decision that PNC Mortgage's claim for foreclosure through equitable subrogation was time-barred. PNC, a refinance lender, failed to initiate foreclosure proceedings on its own lien within the statute of limitations after accelerating the Howards' note in 2009. The Court clarified that equitable subrogation provides an alternative remedy, substituting the original creditor's security interest, but does not create an additional claim with a separate accrual date. Therefore, the subrogation claim also accrued upon the acceleration of the refinanced loan, and PNC's failure to act within four years rendered it time-barred. This decision emphasizes that a refinance lender's negligence in preserving its own lien does not impact its entitlement to equitable subrogation, but the claim must still be brought within the statutory limitations period from the acceleration of the underlying note.

MortgageEquitable SubrogationStatute of LimitationsForeclosureReal Property LienTexas LawRefinanceDebt AccelerationAppellate ProcedureJudicial Precedent
References
24
Case No. 32 — 24
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. Monahan

This case involves a review of a compensation order issued by a deputy commissioner concerning the claims of Lula Howard and her stepchildren, Soloman, Leroy, and Elinor Dave. The claims stemmed from the injury and subsequent death of Tusan Howard, who was employed in Houston, Texas, and insured by Texas Employers’ Insurance Association. The commissioner had rejected both a claim for disability prior to Tusan Howard's death and a claim for death benefits, concluding the death was not caused by the injury. District Judge Hutcheson, presiding over the review, affirmed the commissioner's rejection of the death claim, finding ample evidence to support that conclusion. However, the judge reversed the commissioner's failure to make an award for disability prior to death, remanding that specific part of the case for further findings and order.

Longshoremen's ActHarbor WorkersCompensation ClaimDisability BenefitsDeath BenefitsJudicial ReviewCommissioner's OrderFindings of FactRemandTexas
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 1943

Bennett v. Howard

Mrs. Era Lucille Howard sued Frank W. Bennett and Bennett Oil Corporation for exemplary damages following the death of her husband, W. E. Howard, in an oil well explosion in Jack County. The suit alleged gross negligence by field superintendent H. R. Smith for ordering hazardous procedures and using old equipment. The trial court initially directed a verdict for the defendants, which the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, suggesting an issue of fact for the jury. The Texas Supreme Court, however, clarified the standard for gross negligence as 'conscious indifference' to the welfare of others. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no evidence of such 'conscious indifference' from Smith. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's judgment and affirmed the trial court's decision, denying the claim for exemplary damages.

Exemplary DamagesGross NegligenceConscious IndifferenceOil Well ExplosionWrongful DeathField SuperintendentEmployee SafetyHazardous OperationsOil and Gas IndustryTexas Supreme Court
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. National Educ. Ass'n of New York

Plaintiff Carole Howard sued defendants National Education Association of New York (NEANY) and Hartford Life Insurance Company after Hartford Life denied accidental death benefits following the death of her husband, Richard Howard. Mr. Howard, an NEANY employee, died suddenly from ventricular arrhythmia, which Hartford Life attributed to heart disease, not an accident. The Court conducted a bench trial and performed a de novo review of the policy's "accidental" definition under ERISA. Despite testimony about Mr. Howard's significant job-related stress, the Plaintiff's medical experts could not definitively link his death to an accidental cause, listing factors like age, cholesterol, hypertension, and obesity. Concluding that the Plaintiff failed to overcome the presumption of death by natural causes, the Court found in favor of the Defendants on all claims.

ERISAAccidental Death PolicyInsurance BenefitsHeart AttackVentricular ArrhythmiaCoronary AtherosclerosisMyocardial InfarctionWork-Related StressMedical EvidenceDe Novo Review
References
23
Case No. NO. 03-05-00031-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2005

Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, Successor in Interest to the Former Texas Rehabilitation Commission v. Richard Howard

Richard Howard, a unit manager at the Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, reported alleged illegal practices to the State Auditor’s Office (SAO). Howard claimed his superiors retaliated against him by rating him below standard on performance appraisals and denying promotions and merit pay increases. He sued under the Whistleblower Act, and a jury awarded him damages, costs, and attorney's fees. The Department appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding Howard's good faith report, appropriate authority, causation, and damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that Howard made a good faith report to an appropriate authority and that his report caused the adverse actions.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationPublic EmployeeState Auditor’s OfficePerformance AppraisalMerit PayPromotion DenialDamagesCausationGood Faith Report
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. Cornerstone Medical Associates, P.C.

Dr. Larry Donald Howard, a medical director for Cornerstone Medical Associates, sustained injuries in an automobile accident while traveling from his home to a nursing home for work. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to the employer, finding the injuries were not sustained in the course of employment, as travel to and from work typically falls outside this scope. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed this decision, concluding that Dr. Howard's travel furthered his employer's business and thus his injuries were compensable. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court disagreed with the Panel's recommendation, affirming the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court ruled that Dr. Howard's travel did not meet the criteria for exceptions to the 'going and coming' rule, such as the 'special errand' or 'traveling employee' exceptions, and therefore his injuries were not compensable.

Workers' CompensationAutomobile AccidentCourse of EmploymentGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Errand RuleTraveling Employee ExceptionSummary JudgmentCompensabilityMedical DirectorOff-premises Injury
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 214 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