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

Masao X. v. Francis Z.

This case involves appeals from two Family Court orders. The first order denied the petitioner's application for the return of his children to his custody, a proceeding initiated against the Rensselaer County Department of Social Services. The second order dismissed the petitioner's application for visitation with his children. The Family Court dismissed the custody petition because DSS had not held custody since 1987, and dismissed the visitation petition based on the best interests of the children, noting the petitioner's conviction for murder and his current incarceration. The appellate court affirmed both dismissals, concluding that the petitions were untimely and inappropriate, and that visitation would not be in the best interests of the children.

Custody disputeVisitation rightsFamily Court Act Article 10Family Court Act Article 6Child welfareParental incarcerationBest interests of the childAppellate reviewDismissed petitionTimeliness of appeal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 1982

In re Peter L.

This case involves an appeal of a Family Court order denying a grandmother's application for custody of her grandchild and directing placement with a foster couple. The Family Court judge, Marks, ruled that the grandmother had no greater right than any other person and that placement with her was not in the child's best interest due to concerns raised by the agency. The appellate court disagreed, finding that the child's best interests would be better served by placement with the grandmother, citing her loving family environment and the child's strong bond with her. A Greek psychologist testified that the grandmother's cultural mourning practices were not detrimental to a child's development. The appellate court unanimously reversed the Family Court's order, terminated foster home placement, and awarded custody to the grandmother.

Child CustodyGrandparent RightsFoster Care PlacementBest Interest of Child DoctrineFamily Law AppealSocial Services LawCultural SensitivityAgency Opposition to CustodyJudicial Review of Family CourtChild Welfare Agency
References
0
Case No. ADJ1323644 (VNO 0276170)
Regular
Nov 15, 2011

CHARLES STRICKLAND vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, Legally Uninsured, Adjusted By STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior order allowing the commutation of $245,000 for the applicant to purchase a new home. The Board found the applicant had not presented substantial evidence that the commutation was in his best interest, citing a vague status of the new home purchase and applicant's complicated financial situation. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to develop a clearer record on the applicant's finances and home purchase details. The Board seeks to ensure the commutation is truly in the applicant's best interest and all financial implications are accounted for.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCOMMUTATIONPERMANENT DISABILITYFINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDERPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONLABOR CODE SECTION 5100WCJINDUSTRIAL INJURYPSYCHOLOGICAL SYSTEMGASTROINTESTINAL SYSTEM
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 1999

Claim of Mace v. Owl Wire & Cable Co.

The claimant's husband suffered a heart attack in 1971 and died in 1991, with the death causally related to the 1971 injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that a 3% interest rate, applicable to 1971 accidents under Workers’ Compensation Law § 27 (5), should be used to calculate the present value of the death benefits award to be paid into the Aggregate Trust Fund. The workers’ compensation carrier appealed, contending that the 6% rate, in effect at the time of the decedent's death in 1991, should apply. The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the statutory interest rate for calculating the present value of awards to the Aggregate Trust Fund is tied to the date of the original accident, not the subsequent causally-related death. This interpretation aligns with legislative intent and prior Board decisions.

Workers' CompensationAggregate Trust FundInterest Rate CalculationStatutory InterpretationDeath BenefitsDate of AccidentLegislative IntentPresent ValueInsurance Carrier LiabilityAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. ADJ7469776
Regular
Jun 01, 2015

PAUL PALMER vs. KANSAS CITY CHIEFS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case concerns whether California workers' compensation jurisdiction applies to an out-of-state professional football player's cumulative injury claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the applicant's minimal contact with California (5 out of 62 games) did not establish a sufficient connection for due process under *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)*. The majority found that California lacked a legitimate and substantial interest in adjudicating the claim, deeming the applicant's contact "de minimis." Commissioner Sweeney dissented, arguing that California has a substantial interest in injured workers and that the applicant's contact was more than de minimis, thus supporting WCAB jurisdiction.

WCABPaul PalmerKansas City ChiefsTravelers Property Casualty Company of AmericaADJ7469776Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeWCJFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)
References
2
Case No. ADJ8260810
Regular
Jul 07, 2015

DANIEL STRYZINSKI vs. NEW YORK JETS, THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS, TIG INSURANCE, ATLANTA FALCONS, PITTSBURGH STEELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied an applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision that California lacks jurisdiction over his cumulative trauma claim. The ALJ found that the applicant's participation in only 21 out of 275 professional football games played in California did not establish a sufficient connection to the state for due process purposes. The majority opinion relied on the *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)* case, holding that California's interest was not substantial enough to assert jurisdiction given the applicant's lack of residency and hiring in the state. A dissenting opinion argued that California has a legitimate interest in compensating workers injured within its borders and that the applicant's connection was more than "de minimis," thus supporting WCAB jurisdiction.

StryzinskiProfessional AthleteCumulative TraumaJurisdictionDue ProcessFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)Legitimate and Substantial InterestDe MinimisExtraterritorial ProvisionsLabor Code section 3600.5
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re David N.

The petitioners sought a preadoption certificate to adopt an infant from Chile, required for federal immigration. The court requested a detailed breakdown of the $10,000 paid to Mrs. Z., a facilitator, for adoption expenses. The provided information was deemed insufficient, lacking evidence that recipients of funds complied with Social Services Law § 374 (6). The court concluded that the transactions likely involved financial gain, violating New York State's strong public policy against child trafficking. Consequently, the application for a preadoption certificate was denied, as it was not in the child's best interests.

International AdoptionPreadoption CertificateChild TraffickingPublic Policy ViolationDomestic Relations LawSocial Services LawAdoption ExpensesJudicial ReviewInfant AdoptionIntercountry Adoption
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nathan M. v. Catholic Guardian Society

The petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. M., applied to the court for the return of their four children from the Bureau of Child Welfare and Catholic Guardian Society. The children were placed in foster care in 1968 due to the parents' inability to care for them. Evidence, including psychiatric evaluations by Dr. John Abbott, revealed Mrs. M.'s mental health history and both parents' incapacity to meet their children's needs. Three children have significant developmental or mental health challenges, with adoption plans in place. Citing Social Services Law § 392 and prioritizing the children's best interests, the court found the parents unfit to assume parental functions. Consequently, the application for custody was dismissed.

Child CustodyParental UnfitnessFoster Care ReviewBest Interests of the ChildSocial Services LawMental Health IssuesChild WelfareAdoption ProceedingsPsychological ParentFamily Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Faello v. Federal Express

Claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that deemed his application for review untimely. The claimant initially sought compensation for a work-related injury, claiming assault by a security officer. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the incident non-compensable as it was not an assault. Claimant subsequently applied for Board review but failed to serve the self-insured employer, instead serving only its claims manager. The Board panel denied the application, citing a violation of 12 NYCRR 300.13 (a), which mandates service on all parties in interest. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s denial, concluding that service upon the employer’s representative was insufficient for the self-insured employer, who clearly held a manifest interest in the proceedings.

Timely FilingApplication for ReviewService RequirementsParties in InterestSelf-Insured EmployerAppellate ReviewBoard Panel DecisionCompensable Injury DenialAssault ClaimProcedural Due Process
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Settlement Capital Corp.

Settlement Capital Corporation (SCC) sought court approval, under New York's Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA), to acquire $125,000 of a $225,000 annuity payment due to Richard C. Ballos on October 1, 2010. Ballos, a totally disabled father of two, agreed to transfer these rights for a net advance of $36,500, reflecting a 15.591% annual discount rate. The court, presided over by Justice Patricia E. Satterfield, denied the petition after a hearing on April 23, 2003. The decision hinged on a two-pronged test: whether the transfer was in Ballos's 'best interest' and if the transaction terms were 'fair and reasonable.' The court found that Ballos did not demonstrate 'true hardship' given his other income sources and previous transfer of structured settlement payments, concluding it was not in his or his dependents' best interest. Furthermore, the court deemed the 15.591% discount rate, resulting in Ballos receiving only 29% of the transferred amount, unconscionable and not 'fair and reasonable.'

Structured SettlementStructured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Annuity TransferDiscount RateBest Interest StandardFair and Reasonable StandardPayee ProtectionFinancial HardshipCourt ApprovalGeneral Obligations Law
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 14,064 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