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. 17 NY3d 957
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Heidgen

This consolidated opinion from the New York Court of Appeals addresses challenges to depraved indifference murder convictions in three separate cases: People v Heidgen, People v Taylor, and People v McPherson. Each defendant was convicted for causing fatalities through egregiously reckless intoxicated driving. The Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that despite intoxication, there was legally sufficient evidence for juries to find the requisite mental state of depraved indifference, distinguishing these cases from prior rulings like People v Valencia and People v Prindle. The Court emphasized the fact-specific nature of depraved indifference cases. Additionally, it addressed and rejected arguments regarding the legality of blood tests and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Depraved indifference murderVehicular homicideIntoxicated drivingReckless endangermentBlood alcohol contentDrug intoxicationMental stateMens reaLegal sufficiencyIneffective assistance of counsel
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Bowman

Velna Prince left her five-week-old baby, Tyshae, with the defendant, Tyrone Bowman. Upon returning, she found Tyshae in distress with severe head injuries. Doctors later confirmed blunt head trauma and blood clots, which were inconsistent with the defendant's claim of an accidental fall. Tyshae subsequently died. The defendant was convicted of depraved indifference murder and sentenced to 25 years to life. On appeal, the defendant argued insufficient evidence for depraved indifference, claiming his actions were more consistent with intentional murder or lacked the required mental state. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that the jury rationally concluded reckless rather than intentional conduct, and the defendant's acts demonstrated wanton cruelty and utter indifference to human life, exacerbated by his failure to seek help.

Depraved Indifference MurderChild AbuseHead TraumaReckless ConductIntentional ActSufficiency of EvidencePenal LawAppellate ReviewJury VerdictMedical Testimony
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Goldstein

The defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree. He argued that his guilty plea was involuntary, citing issues with his allocution regarding depraved indifference, coercion by the court, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, finding that the plea was voluntarily and knowingly given, and that the allocution adequately established the element of depraved indifference. The court also rejected the defendant's contentions regarding the imposition of consecutive sentences and the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea, concluding that these arguments lacked merit. His challenge to the severity of the sentence was foreclosed by his waiver of the right to appeal, and the claim of ineffective counsel was unsupported by the record.

Reckless EndangermentAggravated Unlicensed OperationGuilty PleaVoluntary PleaDepraved IndifferenceConsecutive SentencesIneffective CounselAppeal WaiverCriminal LawVehicular Crimes
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Strawbridge

This appeal concerns a defendant convicted of depraved indifference second-degree murder for the death of her newborn baby in Albany County. The defendant, after denying her pregnancy, gave birth alone at home and disposed of the baby in a plastic bag in a dumpster. The trial featured conflicting medical expert testimony on whether the baby was born alive and the cause of death. The appellate court reviewed the denial of a suppression motion, the admission of evidence under physician-patient privilege, and the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. While affirming the conviction, the court modified the sentence to 15 years to life imprisonment, considering mitigating factors such as the defendant's youth, lack of criminal history, and emotional health.

Depraved Indifference MurderSecond Degree MurderNewborn HomicideAsphyxiaMedical Expert TestimonySufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceSuppression HearingMiranda RightsPhysician-Patient Privilege
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Britt

This appeal concerns a defendant convicted in Albany County of assault in the first and second degrees and endangering the welfare of a child, following severe brain injuries and multiple fractures sustained by her six-month-old son. The defendant challenged the lower court's refusal to dismiss the top assault charge, its denial of a lesser-included offense instruction for assault in the third degree, and the severity of her sentence. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding ample evidence of depraved indifference to human life, particularly given the defendant's admitted repeated abuse and prior parenting classes regarding the dangers of shaking an infant. The court also upheld the refusal to charge a lesser offense and found no abuse of discretion in the sentencing.

Child AbuseAssault First DegreeAssault Second DegreeEndangering Welfare of a ChildDepraved IndifferenceReckless AssaultLesser Included OffenseSentencing DiscretionAppellate ReviewBrain Injury
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Dashawn W.

This case addresses the interpretation of "circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life" in Social Services Law § 384-b (8) (a) (i), distinguishing it from Penal Law interpretations. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's finding that Antoine N. severely abused his infant son, Jayquan N., by inflicting multiple fractures, including a collarbone and ribs, and delayed seeking medical care. The Court also held that a showing of diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship is not a prerequisite to a finding of severe abuse under Family Court Act § 1051 (e) when such efforts would be detrimental to the child's best interests, which was the case here due to Antoine N.'s repeated abusive behavior over 14 years, including a prior adjudication against another child.

Child abuseDepraved indifferenceParental rights terminationSocial Services LawFamily Court ActSerious physical injuryReckless actsIntentional actsDiligent effortsBest interests of the child
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2012

Pooler v. Nassau University Medical Center

Plaintiff Keith Pooler, an inmate, sued Nassau Health Care Corporation (NHCC), Dr. Bruce David, and Joseph Farhangian for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pooler alleged he was denied anxiety and sleeping disorder medication, leading to a severe anxiety attack and suicide attempt. Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies and lack of deliberate indifference. The Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing Pooler's failure to exhaust remedies and finding no deliberate indifference. Consequently, federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and state law claims without prejudice.

Prisoner Medical CareDeliberate IndifferenceEighth AmendmentSuicide AttemptMental Health ServicesSummary JudgmentExhaustion of Administrative RemediesPrison Litigation Reform Act42 U.S.C. Section 1983Pro Se Litigation
References
56
Case No. 03-09-00351-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2010

Serranos at Symphony Square, Inc. and Mama Ninfa's, A/K/A Mama Ninfa's Austin Management, LLC v. Winnie S. Rutledge

Rutledge sued Serranos for negligence after a fall, leading to a default judgment when Serranos failed to respond. Serranos's motion for a new trial was denied by the district court. On appeal, Serranos argued their failure to answer was a mistake, believing their insurance carrier was handling the defense, rather than conscious indifference. The appellate court found this belief negated conscious indifference, fulfilling one of the Craddock elements for setting aside a default judgment. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

NegligenceDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock ElementsConscious IndifferenceAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryTexas LawInsurance Carrier
References
8
Case No. 03-14-00331-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2015

Randolph A. Lopez, D/B/A Brown Hand Center and D/B/A Brown Medical Center v. Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P., D/B/A Austin American-Statesman

Randolph A. Lopez appealed a post-answer default summary judgment awarded to Cox Texas Newspapers for unpaid advertising services. Lopez argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial, asserting that his failure to respond to the summary judgment motion was a mistake due to a belief the case would be stayed because of a related bankruptcy. However, the appellate court found that Lopez's failure to respond was intentional or a result of conscious indifference, noting his mistaken interpretation of bankruptcy law was not sufficient to negate conscious indifference. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Texas Court of AppealsSummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialConscious IndifferenceMistake of LawBankruptcy StayAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionUnpaid Advertising
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R.T. v. Gross

Plaintiff, an incarcerated individual with a history of psychiatric issues, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that various correctional facility medical staff were deliberately indifferent to his serious psychiatric needs. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the Court granted. The Court found no verifiable evidence that any alleged lack of treatment caused Plaintiff substantial harm or a worse lifelong prognosis, noting his post-incarceration stabilization. Even assuming a serious medical need, the Court concluded that Defendants responded to acute episodes and did not act with deliberate indifference. Consequently, the Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.

Prisoner RightsEighth AmendmentDeliberate IndifferenceSerious Medical NeedsPsychiatric CareBipolar DisorderSummary JudgmentCorrectional FacilityMental Health Satellite UnitQualified Immunity
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 224 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