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

Florence B. v. Carol M.

Adam, an orphaned 6-year-old, is the subject of a Family Court custody dispute between two sets of paternal relatives: petitioners Florence and Eugene B., and respondents Carol and Thomas M. Adam has resided with Carol and Thomas for 21 months after suffering the loss of his parents and grandmother, and physical abuse. Petitioners allege Carol's physical and mental illnesses preclude suitable care. The court considered extensive testimony, forensic reports, and interviews with Adam, finding he is psychologically bonded with Carol and Thomas and wishes to remain with them. While acknowledging Carol's serious medical condition and future uncertainties, the court granted joint custody to both sets of relatives, with physical custody remaining with Carol and Thomas, and a provision for physical custody to revert to Florence and Eugene if Carol becomes unable to care for Adam. The decision emphasizes Adam's best interests, stability, and continued access to both families.

Child CustodyFamily LawCustody DisputeOrphaned ChildBest Interests of the ChildJoint CustodyPhysical CustodyVisitation RightsPsychological BondingMental Health Evaluation
References
30
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02325 [227 AD3d 722]
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2024

Matter of Sierra Club v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, the Sierra Club appealed a judgment that denied their petition to annul a water withdrawal permit. The permit was granted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to Helix Ravenswood, LLC, allowing them to withdraw water from the East River for a thermoelectric generating station's cooling system. The petitioners argued that the DEC failed to comply with the Water Resources Protection Act (WRPA) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not adequately assessing alternative cooling systems or the impact on aquatic life. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the DEC took a "hard look" at environmental concerns and provided a reasoned basis for its determination, thus acting neither arbitrarily nor capriciously.

Environmental LawWater Withdrawal PermitSEQRAWRPAAppellate ReviewAdministrative AgencyJudicial ReviewCooling SystemEast RiverLong Island City
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1998

In re Unborn Child

The petitioner, Legal Aid Society of Suffolk County, successfully moved for summary judgment, asserting that respondent Sierra K.'s unborn child was derivatively neglected. This finding was based on Sierra K.'s history of drug abuse, her failure to comply with prior court orders for rehabilitation, and the termination of parental rights for her four previous children, with a fifth born testing positive for cocaine. The court found that Sierra K.'s continued drug use during her current pregnancy constituted a fundamental defect in her understanding of parental duties, placing the unborn child at substantial risk. The decision affirmed that an unborn child is considered a legal personality under Family Court Act article 10 and is entitled to protection from intentional acts of harm by its mother, rejecting the respondent's arguments against legal personality for the unborn. Consequently, derivative neglect was established, and a dispositional hearing was scheduled.

Unborn child rightsDerivative neglectMaternal drug abuseParental rights terminationFamily Court ActSummary judgmentFetal protectionLegal personality of fetusConstitutional lawPublic policy
References
23
Case No. N-111-86, N-122-87, N-176-87, V-1084-87, V-1085-87, V-1052-87, V-1053-87
Regular Panel Decision

In re Sierra H.

Mescal and Peter F., the maternal aunt and her husband, sought physical and legal custody of two children, Sierra H. and Joshua H., who were in the care of the Broome County Department of Social Services due to prior neglect findings against their mother, Linda H. The court considered the F.s' petitions in the context of ongoing Family Court proceedings, including prior neglect adjudications and a directive for a permanent neglect petition concerning Sierra. The central issue was whether the F.s' direct petitions for custody were proper, given the existing statutory framework for intervention in neglect proceedings. The court determined that Family Court Act § 1035 (e) provided the exclusive method for nonparents to seek permanent custody under such circumstances, emphasizing the importance of aligning with legislative policies for family reunification and agency responsibilities. Consequently, the court dismissed the F.s' separate guardianship and custody petitions, but granted their requests to intervene in the ongoing neglect proceedings for both children, allowing them to pursue temporary or permanent custody through the proper channels.

custodyinterventionneglectfoster careFamily Court ActSocial Services Lawparental rightspermanent custodyguardianshipBroome County Family Court
References
11
Case No. ADJ10870145, ADJ8277957
Regular
Jan 30, 2023

CARLOS LOPEZ vs. PORTERVILLE SHELTERED WORKSHOP, MANUFACTURERS ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN CLAIMS MGMT., TREE & SIERRA MGMT., SIERRA MGMT., CIGA, INTERCARE HOLDINGS, ULLICO CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained cumulative trauma injury while employed by both Sierra Management and Porterville Sheltered Workshop. This decision was based on the WCJ adopting the opinion of Dr. Bernhard, which was found to be substantial evidence despite conflicting medical opinions. The Board affirmed that a single physician's considered opinion can suffice as substantial evidence, even if it contradicts other medical findings. The Petitioner's arguments regarding the WCJ's reasoning and conflicting medical opinions were rejected.

ADJ10870145ADJ8277957Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ Report and Opinionsubstantial evidencephysician opinioncumulative injuryCIGAManufacturers Alliance Insurance Company
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brian v. Johns

Petitioner Carol Brian initiated an action against respondent Frank T. Johns to establish paternity for her child, Sara, born March 4, 1973, and to secure child support. A court-ordered blood grouping test, conducted at the respondent's expense following an order on January 2, 1974, excluded Mr. Johns as the father. Unsatisfied with these results, the petitioner requested a second blood test, but the court denied this motion after reconsideration, citing respondent's opposition and the lack of statutory authority in Section 532 of the Family Court Act for ordering a second test over objection. The court ruled that the trial should proceed, requiring the respondent to present the performing doctor as a witness to explain the test's basis and procedure, allowing the petitioner to question its accuracy. The decision acknowledged a potential margin of error in such tests and affirmed the petitioner's opportunity to rebut the blood test evidence, as it is not the sole determinant of paternity.

paternityblood testFamily Court Actevidencetrialmotion deniedchild supportmedical examination accuracyserologyhemotology
References
2
Case No. ADJ8129979
Regular
Sep 28, 2012

DONALD DALBY vs. SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Sierra Pacific Industries' Petition for Removal. The dismissal was based on the petition containing numerous documents attached in violation of WCAB Rule 10842, which prohibits such attachments. The WCAB adopted the administrative law judge's report and admonished the defendant to follow Board Rules in the future.

Petition for RemovalWCAB Rule 10842DismissalSelf-InsuredAdministrative Law Judge ReportViolation of RulesDiscarded DocumentsAdmonishmentOfficial Address RecordHanna Brophy
References
0
Case No. VNO 0439261, VNO 0439262
Regular
May 08, 2008

CAROL SIERRAS vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the trial judge's decision to deny the applicant's fibromyalgia claim. The Board found the trial judge erred by disregarding the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) opinion on causation without sufficient justification, emphasizing that medical causation is a question for expert opinion. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including potential apportionment of disability.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCarol SierrasLos Angeles Unified School DistrictSedgwick Claims ManagementAmended Findings and Awardscumulative trauma injurypsychelumbar spinebilateral kneespermanent disability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carol Artibee v. Home Place Corporation

Plaintiff Carol Artibee and her spouse initiated a personal injury action after Ms. Artibee was injured by a falling tree branch on a state highway. They sued a private defendant in Supreme Court for negligence and the State of New York in the Court of Claims for similar allegations. The central legal question was whether, in the Supreme Court action, fault could be apportioned to the State under CPLR 1601 (1), which limits a joint tortfeasor's liability for noneconomic losses under certain conditions. The Supreme Court initially denied apportionment against the State, a decision reversed by the Appellate Division, but ultimately, the Court of Appeals concluded that such apportionment is not allowed. The Court reasoned that sovereign immunity constitutes a jurisdictional limitation on Supreme Court's competence to hear claims against the State, which falls under the 'unable to obtain jurisdiction' proviso of CPLR 1601 (1), thus preventing apportionment.

Apportionment of LiabilityJoint and Several LiabilitySovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal Injury LawNew York Court of AppealsCPLR Article 16State NegligencePrivate Party LiabilityContribution
References
19
Case No. ADJ7750099
Regular
Apr 01, 2014

JERRI USREY vs. SIERRA OAKS SENIOR CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to affirm the finding that Sierra Oaks Senior Center violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating applicant Jerri Usrey's employment due to her filing a workers' compensation claim. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning on witness credibility and evidence resolution. However, the determination of reinstatement and lost wages was deferred due to insufficient evidence regarding the availability of suitable work and applicant's ability to perform it. The award of $10,000 for the section 132a violation was affirmed, with further proceedings to address reinstatement and lost wages.

Labor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardreinstatementlost wagespoor performanceindustrial injuryadverse treatmentcredibility assessmenttrier of fact
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 156 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