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

Claim of Cast v. City of Gloversville Water Department

Judge Harvey dissents from the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, which found that the decedent’s death did not arise out of his employment. Harvey, J., argues for a liberal construction of the Workers’ Compensation Law in favor of the claimant. The dissenting opinion asserts that the evidence supports the decedent, a caretaker, being on duty whenever on the premises, performing tasks like cutting firewood for heating, which benefited the self-insured employer, the City of Gloversville Water Department. Citing precedents, the dissent further contends that even if the woodcutting was unauthorized, it should not negate compensability. Therefore, the judge concludes that the Board's decision should be reversed, and benefits awarded to the claimant.

Workers' CompensationDissentEmployment ScopeLiberal ConstructionUnauthorized ActPersonal UseEmployer BenefitCaretaker DutiesSelf-Insured EmployerDeath Benefits
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 1990

Schlachet v. Schlachet

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment of divorce entered on December 3, 1990. The case involved a couple married in 1977 with one child, who separated in 1985. The plaintiff, a licensed social worker, reduced her practice to be the primary caretaker and assist the defendant, a practicing psychologist, in his practice. The court properly valued the marital appreciation of the defendant's practice, awarding the plaintiff 50% of this value. The defendant was also directed to pay child support, a significant portion of the child's medical and educational expenses, maintenance to the plaintiff for four years, and a portion of her counsel fees, with the appellate court finding the defendant's arguments unpersuasive.

DivorceEquitable DistributionChild CustodySpousal SupportChild SupportAttorney's FeesProfessional Practice ValuationMarital AssetsAppreciation of PracticeHomemaker Contribution
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Resto v. New York City Housing Authority

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market by retiring, a decision that was subsequently affirmed on appeal. The claimant, a caretaker for the New York City Housing Authority, sustained a work-related ankle injury in 1988 but retired in 1994 at the age of 55 after 27 years of service. The Board concluded that the retirement was not linked to the injury, citing that the claimant continued working for five years post-injury, did not apply for disability retirement, and was never medically advised to retire due to the injury. Despite some indications that the injury might have influenced the retirement decision, the Board's factual determination was upheld due to substantial evidence supporting its finding.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary withdrawalLabor marketRetirementAnkle injurySubstantial evidenceAppellate decisionClaimantEmployerMedical advice
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02138 [182 AD3d 658]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2020

Matter of Kristen MM. v. Christopher LL.

This case involves an appeal by Christopher LL. (father) against Kristen MM. (mother) regarding two amended orders from the Family Court of Schenectady County. The Family Court had granted the mother permission to relocate with their twin children to Arizona and dismissed the father's petition for joint legal and physical custody. The father contended that the court's determination lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that the relocation was in the children's best interests due to the mother's role as the primary caretaker and the father's sporadic involvement. The court also found that the fashioned visitation schedule preserved the relationship between the father and the children.

Child RelocationCustody ModificationBest Interests of the ChildParental VisitationFamily Court DecisionAppellate ReviewParental ResponsibilityChild SupportParental AgreementSchenectady County
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. New York City Housing Authority

Plaintiffs Gregory Williams and Leroy Williams, African-American caretakers, sued the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) for hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII. The complaint arose after they discovered a noose hanging in their supervisor's office. Despite its removal upon confrontation and a formal complaint, plaintiffs alleged subsequent retaliatory treatment. NYCHA filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the hostile work environment claim, arguing the conduct was not severe or pervasive enough. The District Court denied NYCHA's motion, emphasizing the profound and intimidating historical significance of a noose as a symbol of racial violence, particularly when displayed by a white supervisor.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRacial DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIWorkplace HarassmentNoose SymbolismDistrict Court DecisionMotion to Dismiss DeniedAfrican-Americans' RightsSupervisor Misconduct
References
23
Case No. 283 CAF 23-01677
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2025

Matter of Chandler W. (Caitlyn M.)

This case involves an appeal by Caitlyn M., the respondent mother, from orders of the Family Court, Erie County, finding her to have abused her younger child and derivatively abused her older child, pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the orders. The Court found that the petitioner, Erie County Department of Social Services, established a prima facie case of abuse with medical evidence from a child abuse pediatrician detailing multiple fractures and injuries on the younger child inconsistent with accidental trauma. The mother, despite being a caretaker, failed to credibly explain the injuries, and her varying accounts were discredited. The finding of derivative abuse for the older child was also upheld, reflecting the mother's impaired judgment.

Child AbuseFamily Court Act Article 10Derivative AbusePrima Facie CaseCredibility DeterminationMedical EvidenceParental CulpabilityAppellate ReviewChild WelfarePhysical Injury
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 1988

Williams v. Harris

The Family Court in New York County granted a father custody of his daughter, and this order was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The petitioner father, despite a past incarceration, demonstrated a stable environment, maintained employment for three years, and completed parenting classes. In contrast, the mother and maternal grandmother, who had been the primary caretaker, were found to have ongoing drug abuse issues, with the grandmother's claims of sobriety contradicted by her treatment records and admissions of deception to psychologists. The court, prioritizing the child's best interest, awarded custody to the father, noting that the child's preference for the grandmother was not binding given her young age and the grandmother's detrimental lifestyle. The appellate court also found the disclosure of the appellant's medical records necessary and material, and rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

CustodyFamily LawChild WelfareParental RightsDrug AbuseChild PreferenceAppellate ReviewBest Interest of the ChildJudicial DiscretionAffirmed Order
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Robbins v. Jerusalem

Claimant, a former camp caretaker, suffered a back injury in May 1999 and was deemed permanently, totally disabled. The workers' compensation carrier later alleged fraud under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a, claiming the claimant misrepresented his disability. While a WCLJ initially found no violation, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that the claimant intentionally misrepresented his condition to obtain benefits. The Board imposed a penalty of $35,059.10 and permanently disqualified him from future wage replacement benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's findings, citing substantial evidence from an independent medical examiner and surveillance videos that contradicted the claimant's reported daily activities and disability level. The court also upheld the penalties and rejected the claimant's due process arguments.

Workers' Compensation FraudDisability MisrepresentationSection 114-a ViolationSubstantial EvidenceSurveillance VideoIndependent Medical ExaminationPermanent Total DisabilityWage Replacement BenefitsDue ProcessPenalty
References
8
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08897 [158 AD3d 30]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2017

De'L. A. v. City of New York

The case, De'L. A. v City of New York, concerns an infant foster child who suffered brain injury from abuse by an unapproved teenage caretaker. The child's biological and adoptive mothers sued the City of New York, foster mother Milcia Pineda, and Jewish Child Care Association (JCCA). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the City and Pineda but denied JCCA's motion. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment to JCCA, finding that questions of fact remained regarding JCCA's negligence in placing the child and monitoring the foster home, and whether this negligence was a proximate cause of the injury, despite the intervening act of abuse. The court emphasized that JCCA's alleged violations of regulations and policies made the harm foreseeable.

Foster Care NegligenceChild Abuse LiabilityProximate CauseIntervening Act DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewAgency OversightChild Welfare RegulationsForeseeability of HarmBrain Injury Case
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Geraldo Perez sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision that he was not disabled from May 15, 1995, through February 23, 1998. Perez had a back injury in 1993 and subsequently applied for SSDI and SSI. Administrative Law Judge Robin J. Arzt denied his claim, finding that Perez retained the residual functional capacity to perform his past work as a sprinkler installer helper and security guard, despite being unable to continue as a housing caretaker. The Appeals Council affirmed this decision. The District Court affirmed the ALJ's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ applied the correct legal standards, particularly regarding the 'treating physician rule' and the evaluation of subjective pain complaints.

Social Security DisabilityDisability BenefitsJudicial ReviewALJ DecisionResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleMedical EvidenceSubjective PainChiropractor OpinionFederal Rules Civil Procedure 12(c)
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 12 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