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 Brian R.

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) moved to admit out-of-court statements from the non-respondent mother at a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding against Mr. V. ACS alleged Mr. V. physically abused the mother in the presence of their child, and the mother is now unwilling to testify due to threats from Mr. V. and his family. Citing the Sirois doctrine, ACS requested the admission of these hearsay statements, arguing the respondent's misconduct caused the witness's unavailability. The court found that ACS met the threshold for a Sirois hearing, ordering one to determine the mother's unavailability, whether it was procured by Mr. V.'s misconduct, and if any statements qualify as "excited utterances." The court also ruled that the applicable standard of proof for these exceptions in Article 10 proceedings is a fair preponderance of the evidence.

Child Protective ProceedingSirois HearingHearsay ExceptionWitness UnavailabilityDefendant MisconductDomestic ViolenceFamily Court ActEvidentiary HearingBurden of ProofPreponderance of Evidence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. ADJ10846103
Regular
Feb 25, 2019

WILLIE SMITH vs. SAN BERNADINO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Defendant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation award based on a stipulated agreement, alleging a mistake in the agreed-upon permanent disability rating. The defendant contended that the 55% rating was a mistake and that the parties had actually agreed to a 45% rating. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, ruling that the defendant's request should be treated as a petition to set aside the award at the trial level. The Board determined that further proceedings are necessary to allow both parties to present evidence regarding the alleged mutual mistake of fact.

Stipulations with Request for AwardPermanent DisabilityMandatory Settlement ConferenceMutual Mistake of FactSet AsidePetition for ReconsiderationAwardWCJLabor Code Section 5702Good Cause
References
5
Case No. ADJ10954606
Regular
Mar 09, 2020

DORIT DAVIDOFF vs. UCLA MEDICAL CENTER, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify findings of fact regarding industrial injury AOE/COE. The Board rescinded the previous decision and substituted a new Findings and Award to specifically address the stipulated injury to the lumbar spine, ensuring the award of permanent disability benefits was properly supported. The Board clarified that stipulations agreed upon by the parties should be treated as findings of fact to meet statutory requirements. The decision confirms permanent disability for the left ankle, thoracic spine, and lumbar spine, denies claims for neck and knee injuries, and orders further medical treatment and attorney fees.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryLumbar SpineThoracic SpineLeft AnkleAOE/COEStipulationJurisdictional FactsFindings of Fact
References
1
Case No. ADJ6620476
Regular
Nov 13, 2017

ALEXANDER KAMAKEEAINA vs. SUPER HEAT, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE (ONE OF THE CRUM AND FORSTER GROUP OF COMPANIES)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to affirm the applicant's permanent and total disability award, rescinding only one finding of fact regarding the specific Labor Code section relied upon. The Board agreed that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof for apportionment, relying on the agreed medical examiner's opinion. Furthermore, the Board upheld the applicant's entitlement to reimbursement for home health services, finding the defendant received adequate notice and failed to evaluate the need for such care as recommended by medical experts. The decision clarifies that reimbursement for home health care is owed from 14 days prior to the employer's receipt of a physician's report recommending such services.

Permanent and total disabilityLabor Code section 4662ApportionmentHome health servicesAgreed medical examiner (AME)Whole person impairment (WPI)Disability Evaluation Unit (DEU)Guzman III analysisMedical treatmentPrescription
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. Nelson

Plaintiff sued defendants, their insureds, to recoup first-party no-fault benefits. Both parties agreed there were no triable issues of fact, disputing only the timeliness of the action commenced on November 7, 1983. Plaintiff argued accrual on April 28, 1981, upon settlement of a Court of Claims action, while defendants claimed accrual on September 23, 1980, when the Court of Claims judgment was entered. Special Term initially applied a six-year limitation period (CPLR 213 [1]) but alternatively found the action timely under a three-year period (CPLR 214 [2]). The appellate court held the appropriate period of limitation is three years (CPLR 214 [2]) for actions upon a liability imposed by statute, such as enforcing a lien under Insurance Law § 5104 [b]. The court affirmed Special Term's alternative finding that the cause of action did not accrue until the underlying Court of Claims action was finally settled, entitling the plaintiff to summary judgment.

No-fault insuranceStatute of limitationsLien enforcementCause of action accrualSummary judgmentAppellate procedureInsurance LawCPLRCourt of ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Covino v. Hagemann

The plaintiff, Lee Covino, sued defendant Ray E. Hagemann for defamation (libel and slander) after Hagemann sent a note to Covino, copied to Borough President Guy Molinari, accusing Covino of 'racially insensitive attitudes' towards Ed Watkins. Hagemann also allegedly repeated these statements to newspaper employees. The court considered whether the statements were actionable facts or protected opinions. Applying the three-prong test from Gross v New York Times Co., the court found terms like 'racially insensitive' to be vague, ambiguous opinions incapable of being proven true or false, and not implying undisclosed defamatory facts. The court also rejected claims that the statements constituted a crime or harmed Covino in his profession, stating they were nonactionable rhetorical hyperbole. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action was granted, and the complaint was dismissed, with attorneys' fees denied.

DefamationLibelSlanderFreedom of SpeechOpinion vs FactCPLR 3211(a)(7)Motion to DismissRacially InsensitivePublic OfficialsEmployment Dispute
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Brandle Meadows, LLC

Petitioner, a construction manager, sought to compel respondent to provide a verified statement regarding trust funds for a construction project under Lien Law article 3-A, claiming the initial statement was deficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing referral of the main contractual dispute to arbitration. On appeal, the court ruled that the arbitration did not negate the respondent's obligation to provide a compliant verified statement. The court found respondent's provided statement insufficient across multiple categories required by Lien Law § 75 (3). Consequently, the appeal court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, granted the petition, and directed the respondent to furnish a compliant verified statement.

Lien LawVerified StatementConstruction ManagerTrust FundsArbitrationAppellate ReviewStatutory TrustReal Property ImprovementTrust BeneficiaryCompliance Deficiency
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1981

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Newman

Plaintiff insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, mistakenly paid $9,805.66 to defendant Ruth Newman, intended for an aggregate trust fund related to her deceased husband's workers' compensation benefits. After forwarding the correct payment to the fund, Liberty Mutual sought restitution from Newman, who refused. The Workers' Compensation Board declined to intervene, stating no recourse existed under the Workers' Compensation Law for the error. Special Term initially granted summary judgment to Liberty Mutual. On appeal, the judgment was modified, with the Appellate Division agreeing it was a mistake of fact, not an overpayment of benefits, thus affirming the denial of Newman's summary judgment motion. However, the case was remitted to Special Term for a hearing to determine if ordering full restitution would cause a detrimental change in Newman's position regarding her benefits, and clarified that interest and costs should not be awarded against her.

restitutionmistake of factworkers' compensationsummary judgmentunjust enrichmentdetrimental relianceequityinsurance carrieraggregate trust fundappellate review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2009

In re Sasha B.

The case concerns an appeal from a Family Court order in Bronx County, dated June 22, 2009, which found a respondent mother neglected her child. The determination stemmed from an incident where the mother left her sleeping 11.5-year-old child alone on a subway train. The child subsequently navigated her way back to school. The appellate court affirmed the fact-finding determination of neglect, citing corroborating statements and the child's inability to get home, which indicated an imminent risk of harm. However, the appeal concerning the child's placement was dismissed as moot. A dissenting justice argued that the evidence did not establish "imminent danger" as legally defined, noting that the child safely returned to school and prior alleged incidents lacked sufficient corroboration.

Child NeglectSubway IncidentParental SupervisionImminent DangerCorroboration of EvidenceFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewMootness DoctrineDissenting OpinionChild Welfare
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 6,234 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