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. W2012-00469-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2012

In the Matter of: D.C., Jr., G.C., D.C., and H.C.

This case concerns the appeal of D.C., Sr. against the termination of his parental rights to his four children (D.C., Jr., G.C., D.C., and H.C.). The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (DCS) removed the children due to neglect and abuse. The juvenile court terminated his parental rights on grounds of abandonment (failure to provide a suitable home), substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and persistent conditions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, agreeing with the juvenile court on most grounds but reversing the finding on abandonment by failure to support, concluding that even minimal payments were token support and that the father ceased payments upon moving to Texas. The appellate court found overwhelming evidence that termination was in the children's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectChild AbuseAbandonmentPermanency Plan NoncompliancePersistent ConditionsJuvenile Court AppealChild SupportBest Interest of ChildFoster Care
References
39
Case No. 20-0552
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2022

S.C. v. M.B., Individually and as Next Friend of I.C.

The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed a case concerning the division of community property not addressed in a final divorce decree. The core issue was whether Family Code Subchapter C, enacted in 1987, replaced the traditional Property Code partition remedy and gave exclusive jurisdiction to the original divorce court. The Court held that Subchapter C provides an additional remedy, allowing for a "just and right" division post-divorce, but does not eliminate the existing partition action or impose exclusive jurisdiction on the original divorce court. This means former spouses can still pursue a Property Code partition, but if either spouse invokes Subchapter C, the "just and right" standard must be applied by any court with jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, emphasizing that the legislature did not intend to abolish common-law rights or impose jurisdictional restrictions without clear language.

Post-divorce property divisionCommunity propertyTenants in commonExclusive remedyExclusive jurisdictionStatutory constructionProperty Code partitionFamily CodeJust and right standardFinal divorce decree
References
77
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00133 [190 AD3d 505]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2021

Santana v. MMF 1212 Assoc L.L.C.

Plaintiff, Juan C. Santana, was injured during demolition work when a ceiling fell and struck him. He brought claims under Labor Law §§ 241 (6) and 200, alleging violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §§ 23-1.8 (c) and 23-3.3 (c). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Richard Mishkin Contracting Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding issues of fact regarding the provision of safety hats and ongoing inspections. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against MMF 1212 Assoc L.L.C. and Finkelstein Timberger East Real Estate LLC, as plaintiff did not oppose and they lacked control over the work. Finally, Mishkin's cross-claims for common-law contribution and indemnification were not dismissed due to conflicting expert opinions on the gravity of plaintiff's brain injury under Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Demolition AccidentFalling ObjectsConstruction SafetyLabor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentContribution ClaimIndemnification ClaimWorkers' CompensationAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 2014-1942 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2017

AL Acupuncture, P.C. v. Geico Ins. Co.

This case, AL Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., concerns an appeal from a Civil Court order regarding assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, AL Acupuncture, P.C., sought summary judgment for services rendered, while defendant Geico Insurance Company cross-moved for dismissal. The Appellate Term modified the lower court's order. It denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on claims from September 8 to September 25, 2008, citing the plaintiff's failure to prove the claim was not timely denied and issues with IME scheduling evidence. Conversely, the court granted the defendant's cross-motion, dismissing claims for services from July 8 to September 5, 2008, as Geico demonstrated timely denial and payment under the workers' compensation fee schedule. The order was affirmed as modified.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentIndependent medical examinationsTimely denialWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAcupuncture servicesAppellate TermProvider actionAssigned claimsCivil Court order
References
5
Case No. 2014-781 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2016

Gl Acupuncture, P.C. v. Praetorian Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by GL Acupuncture, P.C., as assignee of Kenya M. Jones, against Praetorian Ins. Co. The appeal concerned an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, which had granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment to dismiss several causes of action for assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The Appellate Term found that while the defendant's proof was sufficient regarding the mailing of denial forms and payments for certain CPT codes, it failed to provide enough evidence to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for an initial acupuncture visit on July 8, 2010. Consequently, the order was modified to deny the dismissal of this specific claim, and affirmed as so modified.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentAppellate reviewAcupuncture servicesInsurance claimsWorkers' compensation fee scheduleDenial of claimMedical billingCivil court appealFirst-party benefits
References
2
Case No. No. 08-07-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2010

W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo/Rosemary Smith v. Rosemary Smith/W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo

Rosemary Smith, an El Paso Police Officer, sued W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C., d/b/a Auto & Work Injury Clinic, and its employee Maria Gallardo, alleging negligence after a physical therapy session aggravated a prior back injury. The City of El Paso, Smith's worker's compensation subrogee, joined as a plaintiff. The jury found Gallardo negligent, awarding Smith $488,000, which the trial court reduced to $339,983.58. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals found the expert testimony on causation insufficient to establish that Gallardo's therapy proximately caused Smith's reherniation, as the expert only stated it was "possible." The court reversed the trial court's judgment.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceCausationExpert TestimonyPhysical TherapyHerniated DiscSpinal SurgeryProximate CauseLegal SufficiencyAppeal
References
33
Case No. 2016-119 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2018

Jing Luo Acupuncture, P.C. v. NY City Tr. Auth.

This case involves an appeal from an order and judgment concerning a claim for first-party no-fault benefits for acupuncture services. The plaintiff, Jing Luo Acupuncture, P.C., as assignee of Sarah Adams, sought to recover unpaid balances from the NY City Transit Authority. The Civil Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant's cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Term reversed the judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. The court also held that the defendant was not precluded from interposing its fee schedule defense, as it had fully paid for services billed under CPT codes 97811, 97813, and 97814 according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion was granted in part for those specific CPT codes, while denied for CPT code 99262 and the seventh cause of action.

Acupuncture ServicesNo-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentFee Schedule DefenseWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleCPT CodesAppellate ReviewInsurance LawTimely DenialFirst-Party Benefits
References
14
Case No. 2016-329 S C
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2017

Spineisland for Chiropractic, P.C. v. 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by Spineisland For Chiropractic, P.C., acting as an assignee, against 21st Century Advantage Insurance Company concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff sought to recover for services billed under CPT code 95831. The District Court of Suffolk County had previously granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, asserting that the defendant had appropriately paid the plaintiff based on the workers' compensation fee schedule. On appeal, the Appellate Term affirmed the lower court's decision. The Appellate Term found that the defendant had adequately demonstrated the proper application of CPT code 95833 for the services billed under CPT code 95831, and the plaintiff failed to present a triable issue of fact.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentCPT codeWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate TermSuffolk CountyAssigneeInsurance disputeChiropractic servicesMedical billing
References
1
Case No. ADJ4539662 (LBO 0266945)
Regular
Feb 07, 2011

RAUL ANAYA vs. MCDONNELL DOUGLAS; CIGA c/o CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES for FREMONT INDEMNITY in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a venue change order. However, treating the petition as a request for removal, the WCAB granted removal and rescinded the order. The WCAB found that the defendant improperly sought a venue change to consolidate cases, as consolidation requires following specific procedures outlined in Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10260(b).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code Section 5501.5(c)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10410Adjudication Case NumberPWCJStipulated AwardContribution Proceeding
References
14
Case No. No. E2003-01832-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2004

In Re: C.D.C., Jr.

The case "In re C.D.C., JR." concerns the termination of parental rights of Christopher Dean Collins, Sr. to his son, C.D.C., Jr. The Juvenile Court for Greene County terminated the father's rights based on statutory grounds of willful non-support, non-visitation, and the child's best interests. The father appealed, arguing he was unaware of his son's location. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the lower court's decision, citing the father's lack of credibility, failure to maintain contact or provide support despite legal obligations, and general indifference. The court emphasized that the child was thriving in a prospective adoptive foster home, making termination in his best interest, and found clear and convincing evidence of abandonment and parental unfitness.

Termination of Parental RightsChild AbandonmentChild SupportParental UnfitnessBest Interest of ChildAppellate CourtJuvenile LawVisitation RightsDue ProcessCredibility Assessment
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 9,678 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