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

Smith v. Devane

The case concerns a petitioner who, in 1994, received a deferred adjudication for aggravated sexual assault of a child in Victoria County, Texas, requiring lifelong sex offender registration in Texas. After moving to New York, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders and the Division of Criminal Justice Services required him to register under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The petitioner challenged this requirement, arguing that a deferred adjudication in Texas is not a 'conviction' under Texas law and thus should not trigger registration in New York. Supreme Court dismissed his petition, and the petitioner appealed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a guilty plea, even with a deferred adjudication, constitutes a 'conviction' under New York law for SORA purposes, aligning with the legislative intent of public protection.

Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA)Deferred AdjudicationGuilty PleaNew York LawTexas LawInterstate RegistrationCorrection LawCPLR Article 78Public ProtectionRecidivism
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2009

In re Syira W.

This case involves an appeal by a respondent mother from a Family Court order in Erie County, entered on August 17, 2009, which adjudicated her three children as neglected under Family Court Act article 10. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Family Court's decision. The mother's appeal brought up for review the underlying fact-finding order, despite the dispositional order having expired. The court found sufficient evidence to establish neglect, specifically regarding the presence of at least one child during a domestic violence incident. The mother's contention regarding the insufficiency of evidence was not preserved for appellate review; furthermore, the court's credibility determinations regarding a domestic violence case worker's testimony were entitled to deference.

Child NeglectDomestic ViolenceFamily Court Act Article 10Sufficiency of EvidenceCredibility DeterminationAppellate ReviewFact-Finding OrderOrder of DispositionExpired OrderErie County
References
4
Case No. ADJ11381920; ADJ11381922
Regular
Jun 13, 2025

GLORY NANEZ vs. PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, LWP CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC.

The defendant, Pasadena Unified School District, sought reconsideration of a WCJ's Findings, Award and Order issued on March 10, 2025, concerning an AME's report liability and the adjudication of accrued temporary disability. The defendant contended that deferring the AME's bill was unsupported and that adjudicating temporary disability without prior notice violated due process. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the F&O to defer the issues of accrued temporary disability benefits and applicant's attorney fees, agreeing that these issues were not properly raised for trial, thereby affirming the WCJ's decision on the medical-legal reimbursement.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderPermanent Disability IndemnityTemporary Disability IndemnityAccrued Temporary DisabilityAttorney FeesDue ProcessPre-Trial Conference StatementMinutes of Hearing
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Wilinston BB

This appeal stems from a Family Court order in Albany County, adjudicating the respondent a juvenile delinquent. The respondent contested the Family Court's decision not to suppress his written confession, arguing it was involuntarily made. The appellate court, however, affirmed the Family Court's ruling, finding no evidence of coercion during police questioning and noting the appropriate handling of the respondent's mother's presence. While acknowledging certain evidentiary errors by the Family Court, the appellate panel deemed them harmless given the overwhelming evidence of the respondent's guilt. Consequently, the original order of juvenile delinquency adjudication was affirmed.

juvenile delinquencyconfessionsuppression of evidenceinvoluntary confessionFamily Court Actevidentiary rulingsharmless errorrape first degreesodomy first degreepolice questioning
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jeanne TT.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County that adjudicated the respondent a person in need of supervision (PINS) and placed her in the custody of the petitioner for 18 months. The PINS adjudication stemmed from the respondent absconding from treatment facilities on three occasions after being removed from her mother's home due to a prior neglect proceeding. The respondent argued that the Family Court abused its discretion by not substituting a neglect petition for the PINS petition and that testimony from social workers violated client-social worker privilege. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion, noting the respondent's behavior was not attributable to parental abuse and occurred while she was in residential treatment. It also ruled that the client-social worker privilege did not apply to the evidence presented, as the communications were not made to a certified social worker or intended to be confidential. Finally, the court affirmed the dispositional order, finding placement necessary given the respondent's history of incorrigible behavior and her mother's surrender of parental rights.

Family Court ActPINS proceedingPerson in Need of SupervisionClient-social worker privilegeCPLR 4508AbscondingPlacement orderAdjournment in contemplation of dismissalNeglect proceedingParental rights surrender
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jeffrey D.

Petitioner filed a petition under Family Court Act article 10, alleging child abuse and neglect of respondents' three-month-old son, Jeffrey. Initial allegations involved scalding and bruises, later supplemented with claims of numerous fractured ribs following further medical examinations. The Family Court found no abuse but adjudicated the child neglected. The mother appealed, but the Appellate Court rejected the mootness argument, citing the permanent stigma of a neglect adjudication. Based on expert medical testimony from Dr. Louise Godine, who identified nine fractured ribs indicative of forceful squeezing and determined the injuries predated the scalding, the Appellate Court affirmed the Family Court's finding. The court noted the parents' failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the injuries, allowing for strong adverse inferences.

Child Neglect AdjudicationFamily Court Act Article 10Infant Rib FracturesScalding InjuriesMedical Expert TestimonyPreponderance of Evidence StandardMootness Doctrine ApplicationParental Explanations DiscreditedAdverse InferencesAppellate Affirmation
References
9
Case No. ADJ7993613
Regular
Jan 19, 2016

RICHARD MARQUEZ vs. AGRICULTURE & PRIORITY POLLUTANTS LABORATORIES INC., EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE CO.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original award, and substituted a new award deferring the issue of apportionment. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings that the applicant's psychological injury was not barred by good faith personnel action or post-termination defenses, and that the defendant was not required to file an application for adjudication. The Board found that the parties had stipulated to defer the issue of apportionment to a subsequent hearing.

AOE/COEHypertensionApportionmentLabor Code section 4064(c)Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAwardOrderWCJQME
References
0
Case No. ADJ8012038
Regular
Feb 22, 2013

JAIME SILVA vs. SAPA EXTRUSIONS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify that the issue of applicant Jaime Silva's shoulder injury was deferred, not fully adjudicated. The original findings only addressed lumbar and cervical spine injuries, consistent with the trial being set for "AOE/COE only." This decision effectively rescinds and substitutes the previous findings to explicitly state that all other issues, including additional body parts, are deferred. The Board also cautioned defense counsel regarding improper filing practices.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injurylumbar spinecervical spineLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)shoulder injurydeferred issuesbody parts injuredMinutes of HearingSummary of Evidence
References
0
Case No. ADJ9921076
Regular
Oct 26, 2020

MARIO FLORES AGUILAR vs. CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS, INC., OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and modified the findings. Applicant is not entitled to temporary disability benefits, and the issue of Employment Development Department (EDD) lien and attorney fees are deferred pending further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision regarding apportionment to the lumbar spine, finding no adequate legal basis for it, but allowed 20% apportionment to the shoulders. The award for permanent disability of 29 percent remains, though its final adjudication is also deferred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityApportionmentPermanent DisabilityEmployment Development DepartmentEDD LienAttorney FeesMedical ReportingSubstantial Medical Evidence
References
6
Case No. ADJ10034182
Regular
Aug 02, 2017

RENATO NIEVES vs. PIRATE STAFFING, INTERCARE FOR LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING ALLIANCE, In Liquidation, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The defendant sought reconsideration of the administrative law judge's (WCJ) decision to defer rulings on temporary disability benefits, credit for employment earnings, penalties, interest, and attorney's fees. The WCJ deferred these issues because the applicant's medical reports, crucial for adjudication, were excluded due to the defendant's objections. The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition, affirming the WCJ's discretion to develop the record and find applicant's testimony sufficient to raise the issue of temporary disability. The Board also noted the defendant's stipulation to causation and failure to raise the post-termination defense at the prior hearing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderTemporary Disability Indemnity BenefitsCredit for Employment EarningsPenalties and InterestAttorney's FeesJurisdiction ReservedAdmitted Industrial InjuryMedical Reports
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,678 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