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

Alex LL. v. Albany County Department of Social Services

Father Alex LL. appealed two Family Court orders concerning his child Alex MM.: one dismissing his custody petition and another terminating his parental rights. The child was removed from the mother's care at birth due to maternal cocaine use, leading to the termination of her parental rights. The Family Court dismissed the father's custody petition and later terminated his parental rights, despite no findings of neglect or unfitness against him. The appellate court found no evidence supporting the denial of custody or the termination of parental rights, noting the father's efforts and the lack of a proper basis for the mandated services. Consequently, the court reversed both Family Court orders, reinstating the custody petition for an expedited hearing before a new judge and dismissing the permanent neglect petition against the father.

Parental rights terminationChild custody disputeFamily Court procedureJudicial errorAppellate reversalPermanent neglect allegationsParental fitness assessmentDue process violationsSubstance abuse historyFoster care placement
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04124
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2021

Kauffman v. Turner Constr. Co.

Craig Kauffman, a labor shop steward, suffered hearing loss at a construction site in 2012 while operating equipment without proper protection and subsequently sued Turner Construction Company, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). Initially, the Supreme Court denied both the defendant's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend his bill of particulars. However, after the note of issue was vacated, the plaintiff successfully amended his bill of particulars to include vicarious liability against Turner Construction Company as a joint venture partner. The Supreme Court then granted the defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, finding that the Labor Law § 241 (6) regulations cited were either inapplicable or lacked specificity, and that Turner Construction Company lacked the necessary supervisory control over Kauffman's work to be held liable under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentHearing LossLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentVicarious LiabilityJoint VentureAppellate ReviewSafe Place to Work
References
28
Case No. CV-25-0250
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Alex Ryan

The claimant, Alex Ryan, with an established workers' compensation claim for a back injury from a 2018 work-related accident, had his indemnity benefits suspended in 2020 due to a failure to demonstrate labor market attachment. His subsequent request to revisit the labor attachment issue was denied, and that decision was affirmed. In 2024, he was classified with a permanent partial disability with a 71% loss of wage-earning capacity, but reinstatement of benefits was denied pending reattachment to the labor market. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this denial. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that while Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w) eliminates the need for ongoing labor market attachment in certain permanent partial disability cases, it still requires attachment at the time of classification. As the claimant presented no proof of reattachment at classification, his benefits could not be reinstated.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLabor Market AttachmentIndemnity BenefitsWage-Earning CapacityStatutory InterpretationAdministrative AppealAppellate ReviewReinstatement of BenefitsDisability Benefits
References
6
Case No. G1999077
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Alex Ryan

The claimant, Alex Ryan, established a workers' compensation claim for a back injury in a 2018 work-related accident. He was found to be temporarily partially disabled and directed to produce evidence of job market search efforts. Instead, he presented a medical report for total disability based on a right hip injury, which was not part of the established claim. Consequently, his benefits were suspended. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the decision, finding no new evidence regarding his labor market attachment and ruling that the COVID-19 pandemic executive order was inapplicable as his benefits were suspended prior to it. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination that claimant remains unattached to the labor market and is not entitled to further benefits.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market AttachmentDisability BenefitsBack InjuryHip InjuryMedical ReportAppellate ReviewWCB DecisionSuspension of BenefitsCOVID-19 Impact
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1997

In re C. Children

The Family Court's orders of disposition, which extended Alex C.'s foster care and placed Wilson C. in foster care, were unanimously affirmed. The court found that the foster care agency's discharge plan, prioritizing bonding with Wilson before Alex, was in the children's best interests due to Alex's extensive needs from "shaken baby syndrome." Respondents demonstrated acceptance of ultimate responsibility for Alex's injuries through compliance with therapy and improved parenting skills, convincing social workers and doctors. The decision emphasized according great respect to Family Court's findings regarding an early discharge from foster care.

Family LawChild AbuseChild NeglectFoster CareParenting SkillsShaken Baby SyndromeVisitation RightsChild WelfareBest Interests of the ChildJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. ADJ8300983
Regular
Apr 28, 2014

ALBERTO CHICO vs. ONEMOR, INC., dba McDONALD'S, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORP.

The Appeals Board denied reconsideration for the Jacobs-represented lien claimants, upholding the disallowance of their liens due to a failure to prove industrial injury and insufficient evidence. However, the Board granted reconsideration for the Kauffman-represented lien claimants, rescinding the sanctions previously imposed. While agreeing that the Kauffman claimants also failed to prove injury, the Board found their conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith or frivolous tactics required for sanctions.

WCABlien claimantspetition for reconsiderationFindings and OrderOrder Overruling Objection and Imposing Sanctionsindustrial injuryprobative evidencesanctionsbad-faith actionsfrivolous
References
9
Case No. ADJ10531138
Regular
Mar 10, 2025

JOAN MARASON vs. QUALITY COMP. INC.; ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

Lien claimant representative Alex Kauffman sought reconsideration of a WCJ's Findings and Order (F&O) which imposed monetary sanctions for disruptive and unprofessional conduct during a lien conference. Kauffman contended the F&O lacked adequate basis and did not reflect a review of the entire record. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the F&O, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. This decision was based on concerns that a reasonable person might doubt the WCJ's impartiality given the WCJ was a potential witness to the events leading to the sanctions.

ADJ10531138Alex KauffmanPetition for ReconsiderationMonetary SanctionsDisruptive ConductUnprofessional ConductLien ConferenceNotice of Intent to Impose SanctionsWCJ ImpartialityRescinded Order
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alex v. Gen. Elec. Co.

Yvonne W. Alex, an African-American woman, filed an employment discrimination action against General Electric Company and three of its employees, alleging hostile work environment based on race and retaliation. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court granted both motions, finding that Plaintiff failed to present admissible evidence to support her hostile work environment claim against one employee, Michele Lanoue, and her retaliation claims against General Electric and the Management Defendants. The Court concluded that Plaintiff's racial bias theory against Lanoue was based on inadmissible hearsay, and that General Electric had legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-retaliatory reasons for her termination, and the action was closed.

Employment DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationWorkplace HarassmentFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureHearsay EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidenceTermination of Employment
References
41
Case No. Docket # 1
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2013

Diakogiannis v. Astrue

Plaintiff Alex Edward Diakogiannis sought judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson found that the Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was in accordance with applicable legal standards. The Court granted the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Diakogiannis's motion, affirming the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision that Diakogiannis was not disabled. The ALJ's decision considered Diakogiannis's severe impairments, residual functional capacity, and the existence of other jobs in the national economy he could perform.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActSupplemental Security IncomeAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityMedical impairmentsShoulder injuryLearning disabilityMental limitationsVocational expert
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mathews v. Huntington

Plaintiff Joseph Mathews filed an age discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, Atria Huntington, and an employee, Alex Stehly, alleging violations of the ADEA and NYHRL following his termination. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his dismissal, including resident complaints about food quality, non-compliance with purchasing policies, and an incident where Mathews yelled at a subordinate. The court reviewed the evidence under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and found that Mathews failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendants' reasons were a pretext for age discrimination. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationADEANYHRLSummary JudgmentBurden-ShiftingPretext for DiscriminationEmployee TerminationWorkplace MisconductFood Service Industry
References
48
Showing 1-10 of 44 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