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

Batthany v. Scully

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by petitioner Everett Batthany, an inmate, to annul a Superintendent’s hearing disposition from February 17, 1987. Batthany was found guilty of attempted escape despite claiming mental incapacity. The Hearing Officer, Captain Carol Reynolds, based her decision on off-the-record conversations with psychiatric staff, which Batthany argued violated his due process rights. The Commissioner of Correctional Services had previously reduced Batthany's punishment. The court found that Batthany’s right to confront evidence was violated by the reliance on off-the-record information. Consequently, the court annulled the original disposition, ordered all related records expunged, and directed a rehearing where Batthany should be permitted to interpose the affirmative defense of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect.

Inmate RightsDue ProcessSuperintendent's HearingMental Health DefenseAttempted EscapeOff-the-Record EvidencePrison DisciplineCPLR Article 78AnnulmentRehearing
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Monique M.

The mother appealed a fact-finding order that found she abused her child Sonique M. and derivatively abused Monique M., Treston D., and Daymondray T., and two dispositional orders. The evidence showed the mother allowed her boyfriend, against whom an order of protection was issued, back into her home, where he sexually abused Sonique M., and the mother failed to intervene. However, the Family Court erred by issuing the dispositional orders without first conducting a mandatory dispositional hearing, which violated due process. The appellate court reversed the orders of disposition and remitted the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, for a dispositional hearing before a different judge due to concerns about the original judge's impartiality.

Child AbuseDerivative AbuseDispositional HearingFamily Court Act Article 10Parental JudgmentOrder of Protection ViolationSexual AbuseJudicial ImpartialityDue ProcessRemittitur
References
11
Case No. ADJ1941485 (VNO 0263845) ADJ4137418 (VNO 0270976) ADJ1018222 (MON 0140131)
Regular
Dec 15, 2008

GERTRUDE CHISM vs. K-MART/SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, Permissibly Self-Insured Administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition to remove WCJ Zarett as moot due to his retirement, and denied the request for a commissioner's hearing on sanctions as premature. The Board remanded the case to the trial level for a full evidentiary hearing on the defendant's allegations regarding the applicant's attorneys, as these factual issues are best addressed by a new Workers' Compensation Judge. The defendant's numerous petitions for removal, vacating hearings, and stays were largely dismissed or denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGertrude ChismK-Mart/Sears Holding CorporationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for Commissioner's HearingRemoval of Judge ZarettVacate HearingStay ProceedingsImposition of SanctionsGuardian Ad Litem
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Troy M.

The Law Guardian filed a motion on behalf of Thomas M., Jr. and Troy M. to dismiss petitions by St. Dominic's Home seeking to terminate the parental rights of respondents Thomas M. and Helen R. The Law Guardian argued that even if permanent neglect were found, the petitions would be dismissed at the dispositional hearing as it would not be in the children's best interests to terminate parental rights, citing their desire to maintain a relationship with their father, lack of preadoptive homes, and positive visits. St. Dominic's Home opposed, stating no legal authority supported a pre-dispositional dismissal and that best interests are determined at a dispositional hearing. The court denied the motion, holding that statutory framework requires best interests to be addressed at the dispositional hearing, not beforehand, and no provision exists for dismissal 'in the interests of justice' at this stage. The court also distinguished the cited precedent, Matter of Brian G., finding the current case's facts did not warrant a similar summary dismissal.

parental rights terminationpermanent neglectbest interests of the childdispositional hearingfact-finding hearingFamily Court proceduremotion to dismissLaw Guardian rolechildren's wishesadoption likelihood
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2004

In re Whitney H.

In three child protective proceedings, the mother appealed disposition orders from the Family Court, Queens County. The court had found she neglected her children, placing Whitney H. and Brittany J. with the Administration for Children's Services and Royesha B. with her biological father. The appeals concerning Whitney H. and Brittany J.'s placement were dismissed as academic because the placement period had expired. However, the orders of disposition regarding Whitney H. and Brittany J. were affirmed insofar as reviewed, and the order for Royesha B. was fully affirmed. The court found that the petitioner established prima facie evidence of neglect due to the mother's alcohol abuse, citing an incident where she struck Brittany J. and locked Whitney H. outside.

Child NeglectAlcohol AbuseFamily Court Act Article 10Custody PlacementPrima Facie EvidenceNegative InferenceAppellate ReviewExpired PlacementFact-Finding OrderDisposition Order
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 1999

In re Joanna S.

The Family Court, Bronx County, issued an order on September 22, 1999, terminating the respondent's parental rights due to mental illness. This decision was unanimously affirmed by the appellate court. The court found clear and convincing medical evidence that the respondent's mental illness posed a risk of neglect to the child, who has special needs, if returned to the respondent. A dispositional hearing was deemed unnecessary, with the court concluding that adoption was in the child's best interests, despite the respondent's affection for the child, based on medical evidence and testimony regarding the child's needs and current foster care. The respondent's other arguments were found unavailing.

Parental RightsMental IllnessChild WelfareAdoptionSpecial Needs ChildFamily LawAppellate AffirmationRisk of NeglectFoster Care
References
4
Case No. 2024-60-7231
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2025

Farmer, Joseph v. Five Star Building Group, LLC

In this appeal, the employer contested the trial court's refusal to hear its dispositive motion before an expedited hearing, arguing it constituted an abuse of discretion and a violation of procedural due process. The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, citing the broad discretion trial courts have in managing their dockets. The Board found no rule mandating an immediate hearing on dispositive motions and concluded that the employer was not prohibited from filing the motion, only that its hearing would be deferred. Furthermore, the Board rejected the procedural due process claim, stating the employer failed to demonstrate an actual deprivation of rights, presenting only theoretical future harm. Consequently, the Board affirmed the lower court's decision and remanded the case.

Procedural Due ProcessExpedited HearingDispositive MotionSummary JudgmentAbuse of DiscretionDocket ManagementWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewConstitutional LawEmployer Rights
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hearring v. Sliwowski

Melissa Hearring, as next friend of a minor, B.H., filed a § 1983 action against school nurse Karen Sliwowski and the Metropolitan Government of Nashville Davidson County, Tennessee, alleging a Fourth Amendment violation for an intrusive visual search of B.H.'s labia without consent or emergency. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment for defendants, citing qualified immunity for Sliwowski and insufficient evidence against Metro. However, the District Judge set aside this recommendation, concluding that B.H.'s Fourth Amendment right was clearly established at the time of the search. The Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that Metro could be liable for deliberate indifference to the need for clear policies regarding student searches.

Fourth AmendmentQualified ImmunitySchool SearchStrip SearchMinor's RightsDeliberate IndifferenceMunicipal LiabilitySchool Nurse ConductParental ConsentMedical Examination
References
79
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re David Michael J.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Onondaga County Family Court, presided over by Judge Hedges, which terminated parental rights. The Appellate Court previously remitted the matter to Family Court for further proceedings, including a dispositional hearing. On remittal, the Family Court's determination was found to be supported by legally sufficient evidence, despite the admission of hearsay testimony, which was deemed proper under Family Ct Act § 624. The court properly relied on testimony from prior hearings and the dispositional hearing to conclude that there had been no substantial change or progress from the respondent that would prevent the termination of parental rights. Consequently, the order to terminate parental rights was unanimously affirmed.

Parental RightsTermination of Parental RightsFamily CourtAppealHearsay EvidenceDispositional HearingSuspended JudgmentComplianceFoster Care
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2011

In re Princess Ashley C.

The Family Court's finding of neglect against the mother was unanimously affirmed. The court found that the mother's severe and long-standing mental illness, including major depression, anxiety, and trichotillomania, along with her noncompliance with treatment, put her children in imminent danger. This condition led to actual impairment, causing her inability to provide adequate supervision, resulting in excessive school absences and insufficient food for the children. The court properly denied the mother's request to assign an independent social worker to interview the children, as their stance on having no contact with her remained unaltered through previous interviews. Finally, the court's decision to consolidate the custody and dispositional hearing and award custody to the paternal aunt, Carol E., was upheld, as it was in the best interests of the children.

NeglectCustodyMental IllnessParental RightsFamily LawChild WelfareParental FitnessAppellate ReviewFamily Court ActBest Interests of Child
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 4,346 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