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. 2016 NY Slip Op 08114
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2016

Matter of Kent D. (Rachel D.)

Petitioner Kent D. appealed an order from Family Court, New York County, which denied his motion for a forensic evaluation and granted the cross motion to dismiss his petition for visitation with his child. The background reveals that in February 2008, Kent D. stabbed Rachel D., the mother, seven times in front of their child, leading to his conviction for assault and child endangerment and an 11-year prison sentence. A 19-year order of protection was issued, prohibiting contact with the child. The Family Court had previously awarded custody to the mother, and a 2012 divorce judgment affirmed no visitation rights for Kent D. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that Kent D. failed to make an evidentiary showing of changed circumstances required for a visitation hearing, and his claims of completing an anger management program were unsubstantiated. The court also noted the child's continuing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and desire not to see him.

Visitation RightsChild CustodyOrder of ProtectionDomestic ViolenceAssault ConvictionChanged CircumstancesForensic EvaluationAppellate ReviewFamily LawPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1986

In re Moises D.

This appeal arises from an amended order of the Family Court, Kings County, which dismissed petitions alleging that Moisés D. and Noami D. were neglected children. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, adjudicating Moisés D. and Noami D. as neglected children and remitting the matter for a dispositional hearing. The evidence detailed the father's history of paranoid schizophrenia and past instances of severe abuse and neglect towards his other children, including physical violence and a dangerous incident with an autistic son. The mother was found to have failed to protect the children and demonstrated a faulty understanding of parental duties, leading the court to conclude a substantial risk of harm to Moisés D. and Noami D. without supervision. The decision emphasized the necessity of a dispositional hearing to determine the children's well-being and maintain family integrity.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActParental RightsMental IllnessParanoid SchizophreniaChild AbuseAppellate ReviewDispositional HearingRisk AssessmentParental Fitness
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A.D. v. Board of Education of the City School District

Plaintiffs A.D. and M.D., on behalf of their minor child E.D., brought an action under the IDEA to review a State Review Officer's (SRO) decision. The SRO had reversed an Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) award of tuition reimbursement for E.D.'s attendance at the private Rebecca School, despite agreeing that the New York City Department of Education (DOE) failed to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The District Court reversed the SRO's finding that Rebecca School was an inappropriate placement, concluding that the school's individualized program was designed to meet E.D.'s unique needs. Consequently, the Court ordered the DOE to reimburse tuition for July 2007 through June 2008, totaling $62,590, but denied reimbursement for July and August 2008 due to unexhausted administrative remedies. The Court also granted defendants' motion to strike certain evidentiary materials submitted by plaintiffs.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActIDEAFree Appropriate Public EducationFAPETuition ReimbursementPrivate School PlacementSpecial EducationAutism Spectrum DisorderImpartial Hearing OfficerState Review Officer
References
31
Case No. FRE 0200624
Regular
Sep 04, 2007

Amber Osborn vs. Community Medical Centers, Tristar Risk Management

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration filed by California Pharmacy Management because it appealed a non-final order, warning of potential sanctions. Conversely, the Board granted reconsideration for PSPM Ripu Arora, M.D., rescinding the dismissal of its lien claim and remanding the matter for further proceedings. This decision addresses two separate lien claimant challenges to administrative law judge orders.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantsDismissalNotice of IntentionMandatory Settlement ConferenceFinal OrderSanctionsRescindReturn to Trial Level
References
0
Case No. ADJ3115402 (MON 0350919) ADJ2375135 (MON 0350920)
Regular
Feb 25, 2014

ISAIAS AYALA vs. D AND D MOVE IT TREES COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision concerning applicant Isaias Ayala. The WCAB rescinded the workers' compensation judge's (WCJ) decision and returned the case for further proceedings and a new decision by the WCJ. This order does not address the merits of the case, and parties retain the right to seek reconsideration of the subsequent WCJ decision.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationWCJrescindreturn for further proceedingsgrant reconsiderationdecision after reconsiderationtrial levelfinal decisionD AND D MOVE IT TREES COMPANY
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2006

Hatfill v. Foster

This decision and order revisits the choice of substantive law in a libel case filed by Dr. Steven Hatfill against Conde Nast Publications, Donald Foster, and The Reader's Digest Association, concerning articles published about the 2001 anthrax attacks. Initially, the court had determined Virginia law applied. However, after further jurisdictional discovery revealed that plaintiff Hatfill had made misrepresentations about his domicile, the court reversed its prior ruling. It concluded that Hatfill was domiciled in Washington D.C. at the time of the articles' publication, and therefore, Washington D.C. law will govern the substantive issues for all defendants. Additionally, the court ordered plaintiff's counsel to show cause why their pro hac vice status should not be revoked due to these alleged misrepresentations and omissions of material facts regarding their client's domicile.

LibelDefamationChoice of LawDomicile DeterminationJurisdictional DiscoveryMisrepresentation to CourtPro Hac Vice RevocationForum ShoppingSingle Publication RuleConflict of Laws
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Iron Workers District Council v. D.C. Scott, Inc.

Plaintiffs, a consortium of Iron Workers funds, union, and a trust, initiated legal action against D.C. Scott, Inc. under ERISA and the Labor-Management Relations Act. The lawsuit aimed to recover delinquent fringe benefit contributions and compel an audit of the defendant's records. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, providing extensive documentation and affidavits to support their claims. Despite being notified of the procedural requirements and consequences for non-compliance, D.C. Scott, Inc., proceeding pro se after its counsel withdrew, failed to submit a sworn response or admissible evidence to counter the motion. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering D.C. Scott, Inc. to pay $235,417.98 in delinquent contributions, interest, fees, and to comply with future audit and reporting obligations.

ERISALabor-Management Relations ActDelinquent ContributionsSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigantAttorney WithdrawalFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEmployee BenefitsPension FundsHealth Insurance Fund
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Zackery D.

Petitioner initiated a neglect proceeding against Tosha E. (mother), Lindon D. (father), and Stephen F. (mother's boyfriend) for failing to provide adequate care and exposing children Zackery D. and Hunter D. to known sex offenders. The Family Court found neglect by the mother and father but dismissed the petition against the boyfriend, ordering the children to remain in petitioner's custody with an order of protection. The mother appealed the Family Court's July 2013 order. The appellate court affirmed the findings of neglect, concluding that the petitioner successfully demonstrated, through caseworker testimony and evidence of unsanitary conditions and exposure to sex offenders, that the mother failed to exercise a minimum degree of care, leading to impairment or imminent danger of impairment to the children.

NeglectChild CustodyFamily LawChild ProtectionParental RightsAppellate ReviewPreponderance of EvidenceUnsanitary ConditionsChild Sexual AbuseOrders of Protection
References
6
Case No. ADJ4522242 (VNO 0452421) ADJ522765 (VNO 0452422)
Regular
May 26, 2011

PAUL ALLGOOD vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted lien claimant's petition for removal to rescind an Administrative Law Judge's order compelling Dr. Baden's appearance at trial. The Board found no good cause was established for Dr. Baden's direct examination and that the order was not a final, appealable decision. Removal was granted to prevent prejudice to the lien claimant, and the order for Dr. Baden's appearance was rescinded. The Board also dismissed the lien claimant's prior petition for reconsideration.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJ OrderDr. Scott BadenGood CauseMedical WitnessDirect ExaminationWritten ReportsBoard Rule 10606
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re General Motors Corp.

This Bench Decision addresses motions for § 158(d)(2) certification to the Circuit and, alternatively, for a stay pending appeal of a July 5 Order in the bankruptcy proceedings of GM and its affiliates. Presiding Judge Robert E. Gerber denied both motions, finding the conditions for direct appeal to the Circuit were not met due to controlling precedent in the Second Circuit and the lack of a question of public importance that had not already been decided. Regarding the stay request, the court determined that the movants failed to establish a substantial possibility of success on the merits. Granting a stay would inflict catastrophic and irreparable harm upon GM, its multitude of creditors, 225,000 employees, 500,000 retirees, 11,500 suppliers, 6,000 dealers, and the broader North American auto industry, outweighing any potential harm to the appellants. The decision emphasized the critical public interest in allowing GM's essential asset sale to proceed without delay to avoid immediate liquidation.

Bankruptcy AppealSection 158(d)(2) CertificationRule 8005 StayEquitable Mootness DoctrineSuccessor LiabilityPublic Interest FactorsIrreparable HarmCorporate LiquidationCreditors' CommitteeJudicial Discretion
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 33,447 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