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

In re Wilinston BB

This appeal stems from a Family Court order in Albany County, adjudicating the respondent a juvenile delinquent. The respondent contested the Family Court's decision not to suppress his written confession, arguing it was involuntarily made. The appellate court, however, affirmed the Family Court's ruling, finding no evidence of coercion during police questioning and noting the appropriate handling of the respondent's mother's presence. While acknowledging certain evidentiary errors by the Family Court, the appellate panel deemed them harmless given the overwhelming evidence of the respondent's guilt. Consequently, the original order of juvenile delinquency adjudication was affirmed.

juvenile delinquencyconfessionsuppression of evidenceinvoluntary confessionFamily Court Actevidentiary rulingsharmless errorrape first degreesodomy first degreepolice questioning
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jeanne TT.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County that adjudicated the respondent a person in need of supervision (PINS) and placed her in the custody of the petitioner for 18 months. The PINS adjudication stemmed from the respondent absconding from treatment facilities on three occasions after being removed from her mother's home due to a prior neglect proceeding. The respondent argued that the Family Court abused its discretion by not substituting a neglect petition for the PINS petition and that testimony from social workers violated client-social worker privilege. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion, noting the respondent's behavior was not attributable to parental abuse and occurred while she was in residential treatment. It also ruled that the client-social worker privilege did not apply to the evidence presented, as the communications were not made to a certified social worker or intended to be confidential. Finally, the court affirmed the dispositional order, finding placement necessary given the respondent's history of incorrigible behavior and her mother's surrender of parental rights.

Family Court ActPINS proceedingPerson in Need of SupervisionClient-social worker privilegeCPLR 4508AbscondingPlacement orderAdjournment in contemplation of dismissalNeglect proceedingParental rights surrender
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1992

Seelig v. Sielaff

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially issued a judgment enjoining respondents from releasing the social security numbers of correction officers without their consent and ordered the implementation of privacy safeguards. This judgment was subsequently reversed on appeal, vacated, and the proceeding was converted to one for a declaratory judgment. The appellate court declared that the release of correction officers' social security numbers by the respondents, in response to a Public Officers Law § 87 request, constituted an unwarranted invasion of privacy under Public Officers Law § 89 (2), citing federal precedents. The injunctive relief previously granted was also deemed improper as the Personal Privacy Protection Law (Public Officers Law § 92 [1]) exempts local government units and the judiciary from its provisions.

Freedom of Information LawPrivacy InvasionSocial Security NumbersCorrection OfficersPublic Officers LawDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewGovernment RecordsConfidentialityCPLR Article 78
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jeffrey D.

Petitioner filed a petition under Family Court Act article 10, alleging child abuse and neglect of respondents' three-month-old son, Jeffrey. Initial allegations involved scalding and bruises, later supplemented with claims of numerous fractured ribs following further medical examinations. The Family Court found no abuse but adjudicated the child neglected. The mother appealed, but the Appellate Court rejected the mootness argument, citing the permanent stigma of a neglect adjudication. Based on expert medical testimony from Dr. Louise Godine, who identified nine fractured ribs indicative of forceful squeezing and determined the injuries predated the scalding, the Appellate Court affirmed the Family Court's finding. The court noted the parents' failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the injuries, allowing for strong adverse inferences.

Child Neglect AdjudicationFamily Court Act Article 10Infant Rib FracturesScalding InjuriesMedical Expert TestimonyPreponderance of Evidence StandardMootness Doctrine ApplicationParental Explanations DiscreditedAdverse InferencesAppellate Affirmation
References
9
Case No. ADJ7622191 ADJ10153210 ADJ3319380 (SAC 0227891)(MF), ADJ4269417 (SAC 0286258)
Regular
Aug 05, 2019

CATHERINA DE LAY vs. CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL, DIGNITY HEALTH, TRAVELERS

This case involves a clerical error in the caption of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision from July 19, 2019. The error resulted in the misidentification of adjudication numbers in the original decision. The Board is correcting this clerical error without granting reconsideration, as such errors can be amended at any time. The amended caption now accurately includes all relevant case numbers: ADJ7622191, ADJ10153210, ADJ3319380 (SAC 0227891)(MF), and ADJ4269417 (SAC 0286258).

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardclerical errorOpinion and DecisionReconsiderationadjudication numbersSuperior Nationalliquidationpermissibly self-insuredCIGADignity Health
References
0
Case No. ADJ7730913, ADJ8640698, ADJ8233287, ADJ7881756, ADJ8438104, ADJ7467140, ADJ7467243, ADJ9068351, ADJ9081983
Regular
Dec 02, 2016

HOLLIS COPELAND, JR. vs. DENVER NUGGETS, PINNACOL ASSURANCE

This case involved multiple consolidated workers' compensation claims where the Board initially denied reconsideration of an order dismissing Pinnacol Assurance for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Appeals Board is now granting reconsideration on its own motion to correct clerical errors in its prior opinion. Specifically, the Board failed to list all nine adjudication file numbers and did not serve all affected applicants. The decision after reconsideration affirms the original denial of reconsideration but amends the opinion to include all case numbers.

Appeals BoardGranting ReconsiderationOn MotionDecision After ReconsiderationClerical ErrorsPersonal JurisdictionPinnacol AssuranceConsolidated CasesAdjudication File NumbersAffirm Opinion
References
0
Case No. ADJ8221321
Regular
Nov 09, 2020

ANTHONY PAUL MAGOULAS, PAUL MAGOULAS (deceased) vs. LAS POSAS COUNTRY CLUB, HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDMENITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the original findings and returned the case to trial for further proceedings. The Board determined the death benefit claim was timely filed under Labor Code § 5406, even though it was erroneously filed under the decedent's inter vivos claim number. Additionally, the Board found that dependency is determined at the time of injury, not death, and the original finding of no dependent was legally inaccurate and unsupported by the record. Therefore, the WCAB remanded the case to address the dependency issue and potentially assign a separate adjudication number to the death claim.

WCABReconsiderationDeath ClaimStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5406Inter Vivos ClaimDependencyLabor Code Section 3501Adjudication NumberLiberal Construction
References
15
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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2006

In re Timothy HH.

A 14-year-old respondent was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent by the Family Court of St. Lawrence County for criminal mischief in the fourth degree. The petitioner alleged the respondent damaged a car belonging to a St. Lawrence County Youth Advocacy Program worker who had impounded his puppies due to truancy. Respondent asserted a justification defense, believing the worker was stealing his pets. The Family Court rejected this defense and placed the respondent in the custody of the St. Lawrence County Commissioner of Social Services for one year. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the charge and disprove the justification defense, clarifying that Penal Law § 35.25 pertains to force against persons, not property.

Juvenile DelinquencyCriminal MischiefTruancyJustification DefenseFamily Court AppealProperty DamageAppellate ReviewPenal LawFamily Court ActSt. Lawrence County
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 733 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