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
Apr 30, 2004

People v. Dalton

The defendant appealed a judgment from Chenango County Court following her conviction on multiple counts of sexual misconduct, rape, use of a child in a sexual performance, incest, criminal solicitation, and endangering the welfare of a child involving her three children. The appellate court found that the criminal solicitation charges should have been dismissed due to a statutory exemption and that several counts (rape, incest, use of a child in a sexual performance, and criminal solicitation) were duplicitous, requiring their dismissal with leave for the People to resubmit nonduplicitous charges. However, the court affirmed the lower court's decisions regarding the denial of a juror for cause, access to confidential counseling records, proper impeachment of a witness, and the refusal to charge the jury on accomplice testimony. The imposed maximum sentence for the remaining convictions (course of sexual conduct against a child and endangering the welfare of a child) was upheld.

Criminal LawSexual AbuseChild EndangermentIncestRapeCriminal SolicitationDuplicitous IndictmentAccomplice TestimonyAppellate ProcedureEvidence
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campos v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Appellants, Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero, appealed a trial court's order granting a plea to the jurisdiction in favor of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Community, Justice Assistance Division, and Nueces County entities. Appellants alleged federal civil rights violations and torts under the Texas Tort Claims Act for sexual harassment and assault while incarcerated at the Nueces County Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the federal civil rights claims, finding the appellees to be state entities immune under section 1983 and the claims for injunctive relief moot. However, the court reversed and remanded the claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act, specifically those related to premise defect, use of tangible personal property, and negligent hiring, training, and supervision, allowing for further discovery and amendment of pleadings.

Sovereign immunityTexas Tort Claims ActPlea to jurisdictionSection 1983Premise defectTangible personal propertyNegligent hiringNegligent supervisionSexual harassmentSexual assault
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richards v. Stolzenberg

Petitioner, an employee at Westchester County Medical Center, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Hospitals of Westchester County that terminated her employment for misconduct. The misconduct involved two incidents where she allegedly attempted to pull down male co-workers' trousers, violating sexual harassment policy and the Ethics Code. While the court upheld findings related to the sexual harassment policy, it found no basis for violating the Ethics Code, as the code lacked relevant provisions. Consequently, two specifications were dismissed, and the case was remitted for a reassessment of the penalty.

Employment TerminationMisconductSexual Harassment PolicyEthics CodeCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAdministrative LawAppellate CourtWestchester CountyCredibility Assessment
References
3
Case No. 13-08-00269-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2009

Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division, Nueces County Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Nueces County Community Supervision and Corrections, and Nueces County Adult Probation Department

Appellants Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero appealed the trial court's grant of a plea to the jurisdiction in favor of appellees, including the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Nueces County entities. Appellants alleged federal civil rights violations and torts under the Texas Tort Claims Act, stemming from sexual harassment and assault during their incarceration. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the federal civil rights claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, determining that the appellees were state entities immune from such suits, and found claims for injunctive relief moot as appellants were no longer incarcerated. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act, remanding for further proceedings to allow discovery and amendment of pleadings regarding allegations of premise defect and the use of tangible personal property, consistent with prior rulings.

Plea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActFederal Civil RightsSection 1983Premise DefectTangible Personal PropertyNegligent Hiring and SupervisionSexual MisconductIncarceration Conditions
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2000

American Home Assurance v. McDonald

This case involves a dispute between American Home Assurance Company and its insured social workers, Rory McDonald and Helene Anisfeld, regarding professional liability policies. The core issue is the validity and applicability of a $25,000 "sexual misconduct" limitation clause after McDonald was accused of sexual misconduct with a patient, Randy K., who also sued Anisfeld for vicarious and independent negligence. The Supreme Court initially deemed the limitation against New York public policy for non-sexual misconduct claims. However, the appellate court modified this, affirming that the sexual misconduct provision is valid under New York public policy and limits American Home's indemnity duty to McDonald to $25,000 for all claims. Crucially, the appellate court also ruled that the sexual misconduct limitation did not apply to Anisfeld, as Randy K. was exclusively McDonald's patient, ensuring Anisfeld full coverage for Randy K.'s negligence claims against her.

Insurance LawProfessional LiabilitySexual Misconduct ClausePolicy InterpretationPublic Policy ArgumentVicarious LiabilityDuty to IndemnifyDuty to DefendSocial Work MalpracticeInsurance Coverage
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connolly v. Williams

The court unanimously confirmed the determination of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, which found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and terminated his employment as a court officer. The misconduct involved unwanted physical contact and sexually suggestive remarks directed at three female co-workers. The petition challenging this determination was denied, and the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78 was dismissed. The court found substantial evidence supported the misconduct findings and that the penalty of dismissal was not unduly harsh. It also ruled that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the hearing officer's in camera review of investigative files or the denial of an adjournment to subpoena additional witnesses.

MisconductEmployment TerminationCourt OfficerSexual HarassmentDue ProcessDisciplinary ActionAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceFairness of Penalty
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Assurance Co. v. McDonald

This declaratory judgment action involves American Home Assurance Company seeking to limit its liability under professional liability policies issued to social workers Rory M. McDonald and Helene Ina Anisfeld, who are defendants in an underlying malpractice action brought by Randy Kamhi. Kamhi alleges sexual misconduct and professional negligence against McDonald, and vicarious liability and direct negligence against Anisfeld as McDonald's partner. American Home sought summary judgment to limit indemnification to $25,000 for sexual misconduct claims and punitive damages. The court granted summary judgment in part, affirming the $25,000 limit for McDonald's sexual misconduct and for punitive damages for both McDonald and Anisfeld. However, the court denied the request to terminate American Home's duty to defend McDonald upon exhausting the $25,000 limit and granted Kamhi's cross-motion to stay further summary judgment applications until discovery in the underlying action is complete. Crucially, the court found that extending the sexual misconduct coverage limit to non-sexual malpractice claims violates New York public policy.

Professional Liability InsuranceSexual MisconductInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment MotionPublic Policy ArgumentTherapist MalpracticeDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyUnconscionability Claim
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Belmar

Claimant, a school guard for the New York City Board of Education, was terminated after failing to disclose an arrest and conviction for third-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The incident occurred during nonworking hours, but the Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that his conduct constituted misconduct directly related to his position and posed a safety risk to students, thus disqualifying him from benefits. The appellate court affirmed the decision, ruling that misconduct affecting integrity, even if off-duty, bears a relationship to employment under Labor Law § 593 (4). The court also held that a certificate of relief from civil disabilities does not exempt an individual from a finding of ineligibility for unemployment benefits due to misconduct.

MisconductUnemployment BenefitsCriminal ConvictionSchool GuardWeapon PossessionOff-Duty ConductCertificate of ReliefCivil DisabilitiesBoard of EducationPersonnel Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. Alsaud

Plaintiff Jane Doe sued defendant Mustapha Ouanes for sexual assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. This civil action followed Ouanes's criminal conviction for rape, criminal sexual act, sexual abuse, and assault against Jane Doe, stemming from an incident in 2010. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment based on collateral estoppel, arguing that Ouanes's criminal conviction conclusively established his liability for the civil claims. After a previous denial, Plaintiff refiled the motion with additional evidence, specifically trial transcripts clarifying that the criminal convictions pertained to Jane Doe. The court found that the issues in both proceedings were identical, the issues were fully litigated, and Ouanes had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the criminal trial. Consequently, Ouanes is collaterally estopped from relitigating his liability in the civil action, leading to the granting of summary judgment on liability.

Sexual AssaultRapeBatteryFalse ImprisonmentIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentCriminal ConvictionCivil LiabilityForcible Compulsion
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Assurance Co. v. Levy

This is a declaratory judgment action brought by American Home Assurance Company, an insurer, against Richard Levy, an insured social worker, and Pamela Damian, a patient. American Home sought a declaration that its liability for claims of sexual misconduct against Levy would be limited to $25,000, as stipulated in Levy's professional liability policy, and that it could cease his defense after expending that amount. Damian, who had an underlying malpractice action against Levy, alleged negligence but not explicit sexual misconduct in her judicial complaint, though her NASW complaint did include such allegations. The court denied American Home's motion for summary judgment, concluding that while the sexual misconduct provision was unambiguous, enforceable, and did not violate public policy, the $25,000 sublimit could not be applied at that juncture because Damian had not yet formally alleged erotic physical contact in the judicial proceeding. The court indicated the sublimit would apply if such allegations were made in future pleadings or during trial.

Professional Liability InsuranceSocial Worker MalpracticeSexual Misconduct ExclusionDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment MotionPublic PolicyContract InterpretationInsurance Coverage DisputeTransference PhenomenonProfessional Ethics
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 2,628 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