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

Darin J. v. Tylena S.

The case concerns an appeal from a Family Court order regarding child neglect. Petitioner Darin J. and Chenango County Department of Social Services filed petitions alleging respondent John K. exposed minor children to pornography, leading to a neglect adjudication against him and a modification of visitation rights for respondent Tylena S. (the mother). Tylena S. and John K. appealed this decision. Their appellate counsel sought to be relieved, claiming no non-frivolous issues existed, but the appellate court identified several such issues. Consequently, the appellate decision is withheld, counsels' applications to be relieved are granted, and new counsel will be assigned to address the identified issues.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActVisitation RightsOrder of ProtectionAppellate ReviewCounsel AssignmentNon-Frivolous IssuesSufficiency of EvidenceFamily AssessmentPornography Exposure
References
5
Case No. ADJ8861708
Regular
Jan 17, 2014

JACQUELINE MURCH vs. THE RULE COMPANY, INC.; HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer in four sentences: The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that industrial injury was limited to her lumbar spine, arguing the trial should not have adjudicated the extent of injury to other claimed body parts. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the lumbar spine injury but rescinding the denial of injury to other parts, deferring that issue for future consideration due to due process concerns. The Board found that issues beyond the stated trial issues of AOE/COE and temporary disability were improperly adjudicated without notice. The claim's denial by the employer was found not to be improper, and that finding was affirmed.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersIndustrial InjuryLumbar SpineThoracic SpineHipsHeadachesNeurological DisorderSleep Disorder
References
10
Case No. ADJ11381920; ADJ11381922
Regular
Jun 13, 2025

GLORY NANEZ vs. PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, LWP CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC.

The defendant, Pasadena Unified School District, sought reconsideration of a WCJ's Findings, Award and Order issued on March 10, 2025, concerning an AME's report liability and the adjudication of accrued temporary disability. The defendant contended that deferring the AME's bill was unsupported and that adjudicating temporary disability without prior notice violated due process. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the F&O to defer the issues of accrued temporary disability benefits and applicant's attorney fees, agreeing that these issues were not properly raised for trial, thereby affirming the WCJ's decision on the medical-legal reimbursement.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderPermanent Disability IndemnityTemporary Disability IndemnityAccrued Temporary DisabilityAttorney FeesDue ProcessPre-Trial Conference StatementMinutes of Hearing
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 1989

Cutler v. Travelers Insurance

This opinion addresses a class action involving consolidated cases where plaintiffs, acting as class representatives, seek retroactive recovery of attorneys' fees and expenses from defendant workers' compensation carriers. The central issue is whether the holding in Matter of Kelly v State Ins. Fund (1983), which redefined equitable apportionment of litigation expenses under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (1) to include future compensation benefits, should be applied retroactively. Defendants argued against retroactivity, asserting that previously settled or adjudicated claims should not be reopened. The court, citing precedents such as Gurnee v Aetna Life & Cas. Co. (1982) and Becker v Huss & Co. (1977), determined that the amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (1) merely clarified an existing statute rather than creating new liability, thereby supporting retroactive application similar to Kurcsics. Distinguishing the case from Ianielli v North Riv. Ins. Co. (1986), where a formal general release was involved, the court found that the instant cases lacked prior adjudication of contested issues or a general release, warranting retroactivity of the Kelly decision. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment, concluding that triable issues of fact existed.

RetroactivityWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentClass ActionLitigation ExpensesAttorneys' FeesEquitable ApportionmentInsurance LienFuture BenefitsStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 1988

In re Melissa R.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County, which granted a petitioner's application to adjudicate seven children as neglected. The investigation stemmed from a report to the State Central Register of Alleged Child Abuse or Maltreatment. Following a fact-finding hearing, the children were found neglected due to issues like academic struggles, chaotic home conditions, excessive corporal punishment, and a lack of care from the parents. The respondents appealed, contending that much of the proof was uncorroborated hearsay and that a "diligent plan" was not provided, but these arguments were rejected by the court. The order was affirmed.

neglectchild abusecorporal punishmentFamily Court ActSocial Services LawOtsego Countyappealtemporary removalcustodyfact-finding hearing
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2001

In re Christina BB.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Cortland County, which granted a petitioner's application to adjudicate respondent's children as abused and/or neglected. The petitioner alleged the respondent exposed his 10-year-old son, Bradley, to a substantial risk of physical injury and that his daughters, Christina (11) and Victoria (6), were inadequately supervised and subjected to excessive corporal punishment. The Family Court found Bradley abused and all three children neglected, issuing an order placing respondent under supervision and temporarily enjoining contact with his children. The appellate court affirmed these findings, dismissing the respondent's procedural argument and upholding the lower court's conclusions regarding the BB gun incident and the children's emotional harm caused by the respondent's conduct.

Child abuseChild neglectFamily Court ActAppellate reviewPhysical injury riskCorporal punishmentPosttraumatic stress disorderInadequate supervisionEmotional impairmentBB gun incident
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Aniya L.

This appeal concerns two Family Court orders that adjudicated respondent's children as permanently neglected and terminated her parental rights. The respondent, the mother of two children, challenged the Family Court's findings and decisions on several grounds. The appellate court found no error in the Family Court's procedural rulings concerning the attorney for the children. It also concluded that the petitioner diligently worked to strengthen the family bond, providing various services tailored to the respondent's mental health issues, parenting deficiencies, and unstable housing. Ultimately, the court upheld the termination of parental rights, determining that the respondent failed to adequately plan for her children's future and that termination was in the children's best interests, given their stable preadoptive foster home.

Parental Rights TerminationPermanent NeglectDiligent EffortsBest Interests of ChildrenFamily Court ProcedureAttorney for Child RoleMental Health IssuesParenting SkillsDomestic Violence ConcernsUnstable Housing
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Angelo AA.

This appeal concerns a Family Court order that adjudicated two children, Angelo AA. and Ryan CC., as permanently neglected and terminated respondent's parental rights. The respondent mother appealed this decision, arguing that the petitioner agency failed to make diligent efforts toward reunification. The appellate court found that the petitioner did make diligent efforts, providing services for respondent's aggressive behavior, parenting skills, drug dependency, and domestic violence issues. Despite completing some programs, the respondent continued to struggle with substance abuse, maintaining healthy relationships, and consistent mental health counseling. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that the children were permanently neglected and parental rights were appropriately terminated, also upholding the preclusion of an expert witness.

Parental Rights TerminationPermanent NeglectDiligent EffortsFamily ReunificationSubstance AbuseDomestic ViolenceParenting SkillsMental Health CounselingExpert Witness PreclusionDue Process
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1997

In re Brian E.

This case details an appeal from a Family Court order that adjudicated the respondent as a person in need of supervision (PINS). The adjudication stemmed from the respondent's admission of facts regarding school and behavioral issues, leading to a consented placement with the Ulster County Department of Social Services. Respondent's counsel sought to be relieved from representation, arguing the absence of nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The court, upon review, agreed with counsel's assessment and granted the application to withdraw. Consequently, the Family Court's original order was affirmed.

Person in Need of SupervisionPINSFamily Court Act Article 7Counsel WithdrawalFrivolous AppealUlster CountyAppellate DivisionChild SupervisionBehavioral ProblemsSchool Problems
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Fur Liners Contractors Ass'n v. Lucchi

The court considered whether Civil Practice Act section 882-a typically permits framing issues for a contempt proceeding. It was determined that under ordinary circumstances, it does not. However, the appellants, having themselves objected to proceeding without framed issues, were precluded from raising an objection on that ground. The court found the framed issues sufficient to address the questions presented in the case. Consequently, the order under appeal was unanimously affirmed, with associated costs and disbursements.

contempt of courtframing issuesappellate procedurecivil practice actunanimous affirmationprocedural objectionappellate costsjudicial review
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 9,075 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