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

Taylor v. Foley

The petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals' (the board) determination that a drug abuse counseling center was a permitted use for Daytop Village Foundation, Inc. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, annulled the board's decision and remitted the matter for a de novo hearing. Daytop and the board members appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order and judgment, confirmed the board's original determination, and dismissed the proceeding on the merits. The court found the board's interpretation of the zoning ordinance, which permitted 'professional office uses,' to be rational and supported by substantial evidence, noting that Daytop's facility was licensed and staffed by professionals.

Zoning OrdinanceProfessional Office UseDrug Abuse Counseling CenterPermitted UseTown of GreenburghZoning Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationSubstantial EvidenceLand Use
References
9
Case No. ADJ9257767
Regular
Aug 28, 2014

JILL ALES vs. DRUG ABUSE ALTERNATIVE CENTER, CYPRESS INSURANCE, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMES STATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal in the case of Jill Ales versus Drug Abuse Alternative Center. The Board adopted the WCJ's report as the basis for this denial. However, the Board noted that a change of venue might be considered if trial is required and specific listed witnesses must testify.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportChange of VenueDenial of RemovalDrug Abuse Alternative CenterCypress InsuranceBerkshire HathawayADJ9257767Anaheim District Office
References
0
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02654
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2016

Matter of Dayannie I. M. (Roger I. M.)

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Family Court order which found Roger I.M. abused and neglected his daughter, Eyllen I.M., and derivatively abused his other children: Dayannie I.M., Hillary I.M., Keyri I.M., and Jackzenny I.M. The court found that the Suffolk County Department of Social Services presented sufficient evidence, including Eyllen's consistent out-of-court statements, expert testimony, and Roger I.M.'s written confession of sexual abuse. The Appellate Division upheld the Family Court's credibility assessment, rejecting the appellant's and the children's mother's disputes. The court also affirmed the derivative abuse findings for the other children, noting that a child's recantation does not necessarily invalidate prior abuse allegations, especially when pressured or if there is expert testimony indicating a false recantation.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewSexual AbuseCredibilityRecantationExpert TestimonyParental RightsSuffolk County Family Court
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2002

In re Roy R.

The Family Court found the respondent (mother) guilty of neglect due to her repeated attempts to allow the father, who had a history of drug abuse and domestic violence, to return to the family home. The respondent knew or should have known of the father's drug use within the home, leading to two of the three children witnessing drug use, having access to drugs, and on one occasion, ingesting them. The finding of neglect was supported by a preponderance of evidence, including the children's cross-corroborated statements to a social worker, the respondent's statements about the father's drug addiction, and the father's documented history of drug abuse. The orders of disposition, which released the children to the respondent’s custody under the supervision of the Administration for Children’s Services for 12 months, were unanimously affirmed.

NeglectDrug AbuseDomestic ViolenceChild WelfareFamily CourtParental NeglectChild CustodyEvidenceCorroborationAppellate Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1992

In re Jamie C.

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order in Broome County, which granted a petitioner's application to adjudicate the respondents' children as abused and/or neglected. The Family Court had found the father, James D., sexually and physically abused his daughter Jamie C. and neglected all four children, while the mother, Barbara C., sexually abused Jamie and neglected all four. On appeal, the finding of sexual abuse against the mother was reversed due to insufficient corroborating evidence and Jamie C.'s conflicting sworn testimony. However, the findings of the father's sexual and physical abuse, and both parents' neglect stemming from chronic alcohol abuse and violent behavior, were affirmed based on Jamie's credible testimony and other evidence presented.

Family LawChild AbuseChild NeglectSexual AbusePhysical AbuseAlcohol AbuseCredibility of TestimonyCorroboration of EvidenceAppellate ReviewFamily Court Act
References
1
Case No. 2016-01-0546
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2017

Roper, Jeremiah v. Allegis Group

Jeremiah Roper, an Allegis Group employee, suffered a traumatic left-hand amputation during a work-related accident, leading to multiple surgeries and a sepsis infection. He subsequently experienced severe phantom and neuropathic pain, which he attempted to self-medicate with illegal drugs, resulting in substance abuse issues. After being referred to a pain management specialist, Dr. Joe Browder, Mr. Roper was refused further treatment due to a positive drug screen. The Court, recognizing the potential for substance abuse following a work injury, denied Mr. Roper's request for another pain management panel. Instead, it ordered Allegis Group to authorize and schedule Mr. Roper to see his authorized treating physician, Dr. Brian Tonne, on an expedited basis, to evaluate his current condition, pain management needs, and potential substance abuse problem.

Amputation InjuryPain ManagementSubstance AbuseMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingPhysician ReferralDrug ScreeningComplex Regional Pain SyndromeTreating PhysicianEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. 06 Civ. 13289
Regular Panel Decision

Cordero v. Astrue

Plaintiff Edwin Cordero sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final determination denying his claim for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Cordero, suffering from psychological impairments and drug abuse, had his application denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who found that despite being technically disabled, his drug abuse was a material contributing factor. The District Court initially denied Cordero's motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the Commissioner's cross-motion, concluding that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence, particularly given Cordero's improved condition when abstaining from drug use and adhering to medication. Subsequently, Cordero moved for reconsideration, introducing new legal theories regarding a conflict between his determined residual functional capacity and the vocational expert's testimony. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, stating that it presented arguments not previously raised and failed to demonstrate any overlooked controlling law or facts that would alter the original decision.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActDrug Addiction and Alcoholism (DAA)Schizoaffective DisorderAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ)Residual Functional Capacity (RFC)Vocational Expert (VE)Reconsideration MotionJudgment on Pleadings
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 1995

In re Najam M.

The Family Court's dismissal of a child abuse petition, brought by the Commissioner of Social Services and the Law Guardian for Najam M. against her respondent father, was reversed on appeal. The appellate court reinstated the petition and entered a finding of sexual abuse, remanding the case for further proceedings. Expert medical testimony from Dr. Jamie Hoffman Rosenfeld, a child abuse specialist, detailed physical abnormalities in the child consistent with chronic manipulation and sexual abuse, which she affirmed could not be self-inflicted. The child's consistent allegations of abuse by her father, made to multiple individuals, further supported the medical findings. The court determined that the petitioner had established a prima facie case of child abuse, which the parents' explanation failed to rebut.

Child AbuseSexual AbuseFamily CourtAppellate ReversalExpert Medical TestimonyHymenal InjuryPrima Facie CaseBurden of ProofChild InterviewParental Explanation Rebuttal
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 1996

Isnardi v. Genovese Drug Stores, Inc.

Thomas Isnardi was injured on September 13, 1993, after falling from a scaffold while performing demolition work on premises owned by Genovese Drug Stores, Inc. He sued Genovese and the general contractor, Robbins & Cowan, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide adequate scaffolding. Robbins & Cowan, Inc. then filed a third-party action against Joe Demasco, Isnardi's employer. The Supreme Court granted Isnardi summary judgment on liability. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, denying the plaintiff's motion, as there was a factual dispute regarding whether Isnardi was a recalcitrant worker who refused to use a provided safe "pipe" scaffold, opting instead for an allegedly less stable "Baker" scaffold.

Personal InjuryScaffold FallDemolition WorkRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentLabor LawConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationAppellate Reversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernard v. Commerce Drug Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Peter S. Bernard brought claims against Commerce Drug Company and Del Laboratories, Inc. for trademark violations under the Lanham Act and state law concerning the product 'Arthriticare.' Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on trademark infringement and judgment on the pleadings for fraudulent trademark registration, while plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment. The court found plaintiff's 'Arthriticare' mark to be descriptive and lacking secondary meaning, thus granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on the trademark infringement claim. The claim for fraudulent trademark registration was dismissed as defendants' mark was not registered. All remaining state and common law claims were dismissed due to the absence of federal claims and diversity jurisdiction.

Trademark InfringementLanham ActSummary JudgmentJudgment on PleadingsDescriptive TrademarkSecondary MeaningFraudulent RegistrationPendent JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionUnregistered Mark
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 2,657 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