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. ADJ9701120, ADJ10123214, ADJ10696420
Regular
Jan 16, 2020

SANDRA GENOVESE vs. DENNY'S INC., HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a Joint Findings of Facts and Orders that had set aside a settlement agreement based on findings of duress and coercion by the applicant's former attorney. The WCAB found insufficient evidence in the record, particularly the absence of witness testimony and specific exhibits, to support a finding of duress or coercion by a preponderance of the evidence. The matter is returned to the trial level for applicant to present further evidence. Applicant's subsequent petition for reconsideration of the WCAB's decision to grant reconsideration was dismissed as moot.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings of Facts and OrdersPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalJoint Third Party-Compromise & Releaseduresscoerciongood causestipulationsettlement agreement
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hines v. Miller

The petitioner, convicted of second-degree murder after a guilty plea in New York Supreme Court, sought a writ of habeas corpus, arguing due process violations for the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea without new counsel or an evidentiary hearing, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court denied the petition, concluding that there was no constitutional right to an evidentiary hearing under the circumstances and no actual conflict of interest regarding counsel's performance. The court found that the petitioner's allegations of coercion contradicted his prior statements during the plea allocution and that the alleged coercion by counsel amounted to professional advice. A certificate of appealability was granted on the two primary questions.

Habeas CorpusGuilty Plea WithdrawalDue ProcessIneffective Assistance of CounselEvidentiary HearingActual Conflict of InterestRule 32(e)State Court RemediesAEDPA
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Revette

This case involves a petitioner seeking the return of her child, Robert Revette, whose care and custody were voluntarily transferred to the Commissioner of Social Services of Onondaga County. After several informal requests for the child's return were denied, the petitioner formally executed a document permanently surrendering the child for adoption. She subsequently filed a motion to show cause, contending that the surrender was signed under duress and coercion. The court found no evidence of duress or coercion, ruling that the surrender was voluntary and duly executed. Additionally, the petitioner failed to provide proper, formal notice of her intent to revoke the surrender within the allowed 30-day period. Consequently, the court dismissed her petition for the revocation of the surrender and the return of the child.

Child CustodyVoluntary SurrenderRevocation of SurrenderDuress and CoercionFoster CareAdoptionParental RightsSocial Services LawNotice RequirementMental Health History
References
6
Case No. 11-15-00280-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2017

Yamil Luciano v. Faith Alanna Luciano

This appeal arises from a divorce proceeding where Yamil Luciano challenged the trial court's final decree. Luciano raised five issues, including the denial of his motion for new trial based on newly discovered cell phone evidence, the trial court's decision to proceed without mediation, and allegations of coercion into a settlement agreement. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found no abuse of discretion regarding the motion for new trial, citing lack of diligence and evidence. It also determined that mediation in parent-child disputes is discretionary, not mandatory, and upheld the trial court's decision to deny a continuance for mediation. Furthermore, the court ruled that Luciano failed to preserve his complaints regarding inadequate disclosure and coercion for appellate review.

DivorceChild SupportMotion for New TrialNewly Discovered EvidenceMediationAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedureSettlement AgreementCoercionAttorney Negligence
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Marcus

Defendant Glenn Marcus was convicted of sex trafficking and forced labor stemming from his abusive BDSM relationship with Jodi, who he coerced into performing sexual acts and labor for his commercial website. Marcus moved for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, arguing the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) did not apply to intimate relationships or consensual BDSM, and that there was insufficient evidence of a nexus between his force/coercion and the commercial sex acts or labor. The court denied both motions, upholding the convictions. The court found the TVPA statutes were broadly applicable, rejecting a narrow interpretation based on intimate relationships, and affirmed that evidence sufficiently demonstrated Marcus's use of non-consensual force and coercion to compel Jodi's participation in commercial sex acts and website-related labor, despite the BDSM context.

Sex TraffickingForced LaborBDSMRule 29 MotionRule 33 MotionTrafficking Victims Protection ActStatutory InterpretationRule of LenityCommercial Sex ActsSexual Exploitation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Lasky

Defendant Clark Lasky, president of Employee Health Plan Administrators, Inc. (EHPA), was convicted in 1998 of embezzling funds from an employee welfare benefit plan and mail fraud. This stemmed from his failure to remit health benefit monies collected from employers to Local 119, Brotherhood of Industrial Workers (BIW). Lasky moved to withdraw his guilty plea under Rule 32(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, asserting coercion by the Government and belatedly claiming innocence. He cited a favorable civil judgment in a related case as support for his innocence. The Court denied Lasky's motion, finding his coercion claims contradicted by the extensive plea allocution record. The court concluded that his asserted innocence was a "change of heart" motivated by the favorable civil decision and apprehension about sentencing, and that no evidentiary hearing was necessary as his allegations contradicted the record.

Guilty Plea WithdrawalRule 32(e) F.R.Cr.P.Coercion ClaimVoluntariness of PleaPlea AllocutionEmbezzlementMail FraudERISA ViolationFederal Criminal ProcedureSentencing Guidelines
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Private Sanitation Industry Ass'n of Nassau/Suffolk, Inc.

The United States filed a civil RICO action against Salvatore Avellino, alleging racketeering activity related to solid waste collection on Long Island, including extortion, bribery, and coercion against rival carters. Avellino had previously pleaded guilty to coercion and conspiracy to commit bribery in state court. The government moved for partial summary judgment. Avellino cross-moved to stay the civil proceedings pending grand jury investigations, citing his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court denied the stay, emphasizing that pre-indictment stays are generally disfavored and that the public interest in resolving corruption in the solid waste industry outweighs Avellino's interest in avoiding the Fifth Amendment dilemma, especially given his prior invocations of the privilege. The court granted Avellino 20 days to respond to the government's summary judgment motion.

RICORacketeeringCivil RICOOrganized CrimeSolid Waste ManagementExtortionBriberyCoercionFifth Amendment PrivilegeStay of Civil Proceedings
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

in the Interest of D.E.H., a Minor Child

E.L. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter, D.E.H., arguing she involuntarily executed an affidavit relinquishing her rights and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion for new trial. D.E.H. was removed from E.L.'s custody after sustaining severe injuries consistent with child abuse, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (TDFPS) was appointed permanent managing conservator. E.L. contended she signed the relinquishment affidavit under duress and coercion, believing she would lose all contact with D.E.H. otherwise, and that a post-termination visitation agreement was unenforceable. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding E.L. failed to preserve her complaint for review. Additionally, the court found that, even if preserved, E.L. did not demonstrate fraud, duress, or coercion in executing the affidavit.

Parental Rights TerminationAffidavit of RelinquishmentChild AbuseDuressCoercionFraud in InducementMotion for New TrialAppellate ReviewPreservation of ErrorFamily Law
References
27
Case No. 02-18-00379-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2019

in the Interest of M.S., a Child

This case concerns an appeal by Mother and Father from a trial court's order terminating their parental rights to their daughter, M.S. The Department of Family and Protective Services initiated the termination proceedings following reports of neglectful supervision and M.S. testing positive for methamphetamine at birth. Mother, who is HIV positive, also exhibited inconsistent medical care for M.S. and used illegal drugs. Both parents refused mandated drug testing and faced investigations for forgery. They signed irrevocable affidavits of relinquishment for M.S. during the trial. Subsequently, they argued the affidavits were involuntary, obtained under duress and coercion, claiming they were pressured to sign to preserve their relationship with their other child, A.G. Father made similar claims regarding his affidavit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the finding that the affidavits were signed voluntarily and without duress or coercion.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareDrug AbuseMedical NeglectAffidavit of RelinquishmentDuress and CoercionVoluntary ConsentAppellate ReviewFamily LawChild Protection
References
27
Case No. 04-09-00017-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2010

Mary S. Roberts v. State

Mary S. Roberts, the appellant, was found guilty on five counts of theft by coercion or deception, receiving a suspended sentence and ten years of community supervision. She appealed, citing insufficient evidence, mistake of law, jury instruction errors, indictment flaws, and the unconstitutionality of the theft statute. The core of the case involved Roberts and her husband, Ted Roberts, extorting money from four men with whom Mary had affairs. They used Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 petitions, threatening exposure and financial repercussions if the men failed to pay. The $115,000 obtained was diverted to personal and law firm expenses, rather than the purported children’s foundation. The court upheld the conviction, finding sufficient evidence for theft by deception or coercion under the law of parties. It also dismissed her affirmative defense, objections to jury instructions and indictment, and constitutional challenges to the theft statute. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Theft by CoercionTheft by DeceptionCriminal ResponsibilityLaw of PartiesAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceMistake of Law DefenseJury Charge ErrorIndictment ValidityConstitutional Challenge
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 75 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