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

A. F. v. Spence Chapin Agency

A 16-year-old father, who previously consented to the adoption of his out-of-wedlock infant, sought custody, attempting to revoke his consent. The birth mother had also surrendered the child to Spence Chapin Services for Families and Children, who placed the baby with preadoptive parents. The court examined the validity of the minor father's consent, whether it was statutorily or constitutionally required, and his standing to petition for custody. It found the father's consent invalid due to the agency's insufficient guidance for a minor, but determined his consent was not legally required under Domestic Relations Law § 111 (1) (e) as he did not meet the criteria for demonstrating paternal interest. Applying the 'best interest of the child' standard, the court ultimately denied the father's custody petition, concluding the preadoptive parents were better suited.

Adoption LawChild CustodyMinor Parents' RightsParental ConsentBest Interests of the ChildFamily LawUnmarried FathersRevocation of ConsentAdoption AgenciesLegal Standing
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2013

Claim of Zaldivar v. SNS Organization

The claimant suffered a back and leg injury during employment, leading to a workers' compensation claim and a third-party action. The workers' compensation claim was established. The claimant sought the carrier's consent to settle the third-party claim. The carrier initially consented with conditions, but later questioned the settlement terms upon learning it was structured, requesting an investigation. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge directed the claimant to provide proof of compliance with consent conditions. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed and continued the case for further record development. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Board's decision was interlocutory and did not dispose of all substantive issues.

Third-Party SettlementCarrier ConsentInterlocutory AppealRecord DevelopmentAppellate ProcedureStructured SettlementDismissed AppealProcedural RulingConditions for ConsentWorkers' Compensation Board
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1982

Claim of Moore v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

This case involves an appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a carrier's conduct regarding a claimant's third-party action settlement. The core issue was whether the board's finding that the carrier was estopped from raising lack of consent to the settlement as a defense for future compensation awards was supported by substantial evidence. The record showed that the claimant's attorney sought the carrier's consent multiple times but was advised it was unnecessary. The board concluded that the carrier's prior denials of the necessity for consent legally prevented them from later asserting its absence as a defense. The appellate court affirmed the board's decision.

Workers' CompensationEstoppelThird-Party ActionSettlement ConsentCarrier ConductFuture AwardsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate DivisionClaimant RightsDefense Waiver
References
1
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03294 [184 AD3d 223]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2020

Matter of Mauser

Marc R. Mauser, an attorney, was publicly censured by the Appellate Division, First Department, for professional misconduct. The Attorney Grievance Committee initiated disciplinary action against him for neglecting a client's personal injury case, failing to communicate for approximately 18 months, and making misrepresentations to the client, mediator, and the Committee regarding the case status and reasons for delays. Mauser also failed to diligently finalize a settlement and disburse funds promptly. The parties reached a joint agreement for discipline by consent, stipulating to violations of several Rules of Professional Conduct, including neglect of a legal matter, failure to promptly comply with client requests for information, failure to act with reasonable diligence, inadequate supervision of staff, and engaging in dishonest conduct. Despite aggravating factors, mitigating factors such as no prior discipline and acceptance of responsibility led to the agreed-upon sanction of public censure, which the Court granted.

Attorney disciplineprofessional misconductneglect of dutyfailure to communicatemisrepresentationpublic censureRules of Professional Conductsettlement delayclient communicationsupervisory failures
References
3
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04444 [151 AD3d 119]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2017

Matter of Losier

The respondent, Picard Losier, an attorney, faced a disciplinary proceeding in Pennsylvania which led to his disbarment on consent in that state on January 3, 2013. The disciplinary board's report detailed extensive professional misconduct, including the misappropriation of $86,400 from client escrow funds belonging to Harry Howell after his death. Furthermore, Losier was found to have commingled personal and fiduciary funds for over eight years, routinely advanced funds to clients for more than a decade, and failed to maintain proper financial records for his IOLTA account for over five years. Given the egregious nature and lengthy duration of this misconduct, disbarment was deemed necessary to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the bar. Subsequently, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, found reciprocal discipline warranted and ordered Picard Losier's immediate disbarment from the practice of law in New York.

Attorney misconductReciprocal disciplineDisbarmentClient funds misappropriationCommingling fundsIOLTA account violationsProfessional ethicsPennsylvania disbarmentAppellate DivisionGrievance Committee
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04223 [208 AD3d 77]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

Matter of Faillace

This case concerns reciprocal discipline against attorney Michael Faillace, who was admitted to practice law in the First Judicial Department in 1984. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department sought a two-year suspension for Faillace, based on discipline imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Faillace was charged with serious professional misconduct, including underpaying clients' monies in violation of court orders, making misrepresentations during an investigation, and refusing to honor clients' decisions to settle claims. These actions violated several Rules of Professional Conduct. Faillace admitted to all charges and consented to a two-year suspension, which was implemented by the Southern District Court in November 2021. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the Committee's motion, imposing a two-year reciprocal suspension effective August 1, 2022, emphasizing the significant weight given to sanctions imposed by the initial jurisdiction and the consistency with prior disciplinary actions for similar misconduct.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethics violationLawyer suspensionReciprocal disciplineClient funds misappropriationMisrepresentation to tribunalFailure to abide by client settlement decisionAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionSouthern District of New York
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Baby Girl B.

This case involves a private placement adoption proceeding where the biological mother initially consented to the adoption of her child born on May 16, 1988. She later revoked her consent after her parents became aware of the birth. The unwed putative father also did not sign a consent. The biological parents alleged the mother's consent was invalid due to non-compliance with Domestic Relations Law § 115-b and was obtained by fraud and duress. They also claimed improper placement under Social Services Law § 374 (2) and § 371 (12). The court found the consent valid and freely given, and the child's placement compliant with the law, denying the motion to vacate consent and dismiss the adoption petition.

Private Placement AdoptionParental ConsentRevocation of ConsentFraud and DuressChild PlacementSocial Services LawDomestic Relations LawBest Interests of ChildSurrogate CourtNew York Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sacca v. Press

This case involves an appeal in a negligence action for personal injuries where a settlement was reached. The workers' compensation insurance carrier, The Electrical Employers Self Insurance Safety Plan, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 17, 1977. This order compelled the insurer to provide written consent to the settlement and approved the compromise. The appellate court reversed the order, without costs or disbursements, and remanded the case to Special Term for a hearing and a new determination. The reversal was based on doubts as to whether the appellant had an adequate opportunity to be heard on the motion for the compromise order and whether the potential legal consequences to the insurer, especially regarding future compensation claims for the plaintiff's alleged psychiatric disturbance, were sufficiently considered.

NegligencePersonal InjurySettlementWorkers' Compensation LawInsurance CarrierCompromise OrderAppellate ReviewDue ProcessPotential LiabilityPsychiatric Condition
References
1
Case No. 2006 NY Slip Op 26532, 14 Misc 3d 842
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2006

Matter of Lyle A.

The case concerns Lyle A., a 4½-year-old child in foster care, who was prescribed Depakote Sprinkles for behavioral issues. The Monroe County Department of Human Services (Department) obtained consent from his mother through a caseworker, not the prescribing physician, and failed to respond adequately to her attempts to withdraw consent. The Family Court, Monroe County, ruled that the Department's procedures for obtaining parental consent for psychotropic medication and handling withdrawal of consent were legally insufficient, violating the child's and parent's due process and liberty rights. The court emphasized that informed consent requires direct physician consultation and that parents maintain the right to make medication decisions for children in foster care. The decision mandates the Department to reform its procedures for medication administration and consent.

Child NeglectFoster CarePsychotropic MedicationParental ConsentInformed ConsentDue ProcessLiberty InterestsMedical TreatmentWithdrawal of ConsentFamily Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2001

Claim of Drewes v. Guterl Steel

This case involves an appeal by the State Insurance Fund (SIF) and Guterl Steel from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, which ruled that SIF waived its right to reimbursement from Lumbermens Insurance Company. The decedent's husband died of mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure, leading to a workers' compensation claim where Guterl Steel, insured by SIF, was primarily liable. Lumbermens, as a carrier for a previous employer, was ordered to contribute 21.6% of the benefits. Claimant settled third-party wrongful death claims with SIF's consent, but without Lumbermens' knowledge or consent. Lumbermens objected, asserting an enforceable lien under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29, requiring its consent. The Board agreed, finding SIF's failure to obtain consent led to the forfeiture of its reimbursement rights. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that Lumbermens had an enforceable lien and SIF was responsible for securing its consent.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseMesotheliomaAsbestos ExposureThird-Party SettlementLien EnforcementApportionment of LiabilityInsurance Carrier DisputeConsent RequirementWaiver of Reimbursement
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 584 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