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

In re Darlene T.

The Family Court of Onondaga County adjudicated Darlene T. a neglected child due to the mother's unsafe conduct, including leaving the child unattended and entertaining male companions overnight. Following a dispositional hearing, the court remanded the child to the mother's custody under supervision and conditions. The petitioner appealed, arguing that the Family Court erred by not making an express finding regarding the child's best interests or the mother's fitness. The appellate court found the Family Court's order equivocal regarding the mother's fitness and erred in excluding testimony about the mother's post-petition conduct, which was relevant to her fitness. The order was reversed, and the matter remitted for further proceedings to include additional evidence and findings on the child's best interests.

Child neglectFamily lawCustodyParental rightsBest interests of the childAppellate reviewDispositional hearingEvidence exclusionMaternal fitnessAbuse of discretion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Puma

A defendant's van caused an accident with an 18-wheel tractor-trailer, striking and killing a highway worker. Evidence showed the defendant's speech was slurred, and a blood test revealed cocaine, methadone, and opiates, impairing his ability to react normally. The Grand Jury indicted the defendant for manslaughter, reckless driving, and other charges. The lower court dismissed several counts in the indictment, specifically counts one, two, four, five, and six, retaining counts three, seven, and eight. The appellate court modified this decision, reinstating counts one (manslaughter in the second degree, reduced to criminally negligent homicide) and two (reckless driving) because the evidence was legally sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

Criminal LawManslaughterReckless DrivingDriving While Impaired by DrugsCriminally Negligent HomicideGrand Jury IndictmentAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceVehicle and Traffic LawPenal Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Monaco v. CIS Corp. (In Re CIS Corp.)

This adversary proceeding involved a former employee, Patrick R. Monaco, suing debtors CIS and Chapter 11 Trustee James P. Hassett for unpaid vacation pay and commissions. The court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on Counts Two and Three of Monaco's complaint. On Count Two, seeking commissions for two Bell South transactions, the court granted the Trustee's motion, finding Monaco was not entitled to these payments due to unfulfilled contractual approval conditions. On Count Three, Monaco sought liquidated damages and attorneys' fees under New York Labor Law for conceded unpaid commissions and vacation pay. The court granted Monaco's cross-motion for these amounts, ruling that the failure to pay the undisputed wages was willful. Pre-judgment interest was denied, but Monaco was awarded $6160 in commissions, $3000 in vacation pay, $2290 in attorneys' fees, and $2290 in liquidated damages.

CommissionsVacation PaySummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawWillful Wage Non-PaymentAttorneys' FeesLiquidated DamagesContract InterpretationBankruptcy Adversary ProceedingEmployee Termination
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Hinkein

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court of Columbia County, rendered on February 15, 2001, convicting her of three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and one count of endangering the welfare of a child following a guilty plea. The defendant argued that the County Court erred in accepting her plea without first conducting a competency examination under CPL 730.20, given her history of manic depression. However, the Appellate Division found that the County Court did not abuse its discretion, citing correspondence from social workers indicating no mental status abnormalities and the defendant's capable responses during the plea colloquy. The appellate court also determined that the imposed sentence was neither harsh nor excessive, considering the defendant's criminal history and her use of a 12-year-old child as a drug courier. Consequently, the judgment of the County Court was affirmed.

Criminal sale of controlled substanceEndangering welfare of childGuilty pleaCompetency issueCPL 730.20Second felony offenderConcurrent sentenceManic depressionMental health assessmentAppellate review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Straker v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

Carl B. Straker, a former NYCTA train operator, challenged his termination following a mandatory drug test, alleging he was unable to provide a urine sample due to a medical condition. His amended complaint cited procedural due process violations (Count I), racial discrimination and conspiracy (Count II), misrepresentation by NYCTA (Count III), and disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act (Count IV) against NYCTA, plus a breach of fair representation (Count V) against the Transit Workers Union. The court dismissed Count I, dismissed Count II with leave to amend, denied dismissal for Counts III and IV while demanding a more definite statement for Count III, and denied TWU’s motion to dismiss Count V, reinterpreting it as a state law claim. Metropolitan Transit Authority, though named, was dismissed as a party due to non-existence.

Employment DiscriminationProcedural Due ProcessRacial DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRehabilitation ActConspiracyDuty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintDrug Testing
References
52
Case No. ADJ2839869 (EUR 0036695)
Regular
Mar 03, 2009

Darlene Counts vs. Sam Kennedy, D.D.S., Zenith Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Zenith Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration. Zenith argued the WCJ exceeded jurisdiction by awarding benefits beyond the five-year limit without a petition to reopen and challenged medical treatment awards. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the original stipulations focused only on medical treatment and did not preclude later determinations on other issues within the statutory timeframe. The WCJ correctly found applicant sustained an industrial injury and ordered appropriate medical treatment, including chronic pain specialist care.

WCABDarlene CountsSam Kennedy DDSZenith Insurance CompanyADJ2839869Supplemental Findings and Awardindustrial injuryright shoulderpsycheleft shoulder
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Aleynikov

Sergey Aleynikov, a former Goldman Sachs & Co. employee, was indicted on three counts related to misappropriating computer source code for Goldman's high-frequency trading system. He moved to dismiss all counts, arguing the stolen source code did not meet statutory definitions of 'product' for trade secret theft (Count One) or 'goods' for interstate transportation of stolen property (Count Two), and that his computer access was authorized (Count Three). The court denied dismissal for Count One, holding Goldman's trading system was a 'product' produced for interstate commerce under the Economic Espionage Act, and for Count Two, finding the source code constituted 'goods' under the National Stolen Property Act due to its commercial value. However, the court granted dismissal for Count Three, ruling that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act does not criminalize an authorized employee's misuse or misappropriation of information to which they had permission to access, even if done with an improper purpose or in violation of company policy. Thus, the motion to dismiss was granted in part (Count Three) and denied in part (Counts One and Two).

Economic Espionage ActTheft of Trade SecretsComputer Fraud and Abuse ActNational Stolen Property ActHigh-frequency tradingSource code misappropriationComputer crimeIntellectual property theftStatutory interpretationMotion to dismiss
References
81
Case No. ADJ3928236 (SBR 0324409) ADJ3514825 (SBR 0332012)
Regular
Sep 10, 2009

DARLENE HALL vs. AMERICAN AIRLINES, SPECIALTY RISK DALLAS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a prior order, deferring the issue of insurance coverage for Darlene Hall's 1976 back injury to mandatory arbitration as required by Labor Code section 5275(a)(1). The Board rescinded the dismissal of CNA Insurance as a party defendant, pending the arbitration outcome. All other issues raised by the defendant were affirmed based on the Judge's prior findings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and OrderReconsiderationSpecialty Risk ServicesAmerican AirlinesDarlene Hallflight attendantindustrial injuriesAgreed Medical ExaminerCNA Insurance
References
0
Case No. ADJ4639220 (MON 0324133)
Regular
Nov 03, 2014

ARMAND LA COUNT vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

In *La Count v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration. This action was taken due to the WCAB's belief that further study of the factual and legal issues was necessary for a just and reasoned decision. The Board granted reconsideration to allow sufficient opportunity to fully understand the case record and potentially conduct further proceedings. Consequently, all future filings are to be submitted in writing to the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not to district offices or via e-filing.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transit AuthorityPermissibly Self-InsuredDecision After ReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decisionCommissioners
References
0
Case No. ADJ3301952 (POM 0298904) ADJ6774915 ADJ7102389
Regular
Jul 10, 2012

DARLENE ROWE vs. HACIENDA LA PUENTE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, INTERCARE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Darlene Rowe's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that she did not sustain industrial injury to her back, knee, or upper extremities. The Board found that Applicant's counsel misunderstood the burden of proof and the medical dispute resolution procedures. Specifically, the Board noted that Dr. Green's reports were the sole medical evidence, and even if insufficient, it meant Applicant failed to meet her burden. Furthermore, the Board clarified the proper procedures for initiating evaluations under Labor Code sections 4060 and 4062, placing the onus on Applicant's counsel to ensure necessary evaluations were conducted by the Agreed Medical Evaluator.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDarlene RoweHacienda La Puente Unified School DistrictIntercare InsuranceOrder Denying Reconsiderationworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.industrial injuryback
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 288 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