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

In re Kim HH.

Kim HH., born in 1983, was living with her mother and stepfather in September 1995 when a complaint was filed with the State Central Registry for Child Abuse and Maltreatment due to statements she made about her home life and treatment. A neglect proceeding was commenced, and Family Court found that respondents (mother and stepfather) subjected Kim to excessive corporal punishment and verbal abuse, constituting neglect. Kim was placed in petitioner's custody. Respondents appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding sufficient evidence of parental misconduct and harm to the child, including physical injury, fear, and enhanced self-esteem after removal from the household. The court deferred to Family Court's credibility findings regarding Kim's testimony of abuse.

NeglectChild AbuseCorporal PunishmentParental MisconductChild WelfareFamily Court ActCredibilityAppellate ReviewChild CustodyPhysical Abuse
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kim K.

The court addressed the Law Guardian's motion to prevent the 13-year-old child, Kim K., from testifying in a fact-finding hearing, citing her fragile emotional state. The respondent grandmother and the Department of Social Services presented conflicting positions regarding the necessity of Kim's testimony for corroborating out-of-court statements. Acknowledging its dual mandate to protect the child and determine neglect, the court denied the outright prevention of testimony. Instead, it ordered an in camera interview with Kim, detailing a procedure for counsel to submit questions and for the court to conduct the session, deciding on the sworn status of her testimony. The court further ruled that such in camera testimony, conducted under its prescribed procedure, could independently serve as sufficient evidence to support a finding of neglect.

Child protective proceedingChild witnessIn camera testimonyEmotional fragilityFact-finding hearingCorroboration of statementsFamily Court ActLaw GuardianDue processHearsay evidence
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 1984

In re Kim F.

The Family Court, New York County, issued a final order of disposition adjudicating 15-year-old Kim F. a juvenile delinquent for acts constituting arson in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree. This adjudication followed a guilty plea entered in Rockland County Family Court concerning an incident where Kim F. intentionally started a fire at a mental health center. The appellate court reversed this order, vacated the guilty plea, and remanded the case to the Rockland County Family Court for further proceedings. The reversal was based on several procedural errors, including the failure to notify Kim F.'s parents, inadequate advisement of her rights to remain silent and counsel, and the lack of an admission of intentional damage, which is a required element of the crimes charged. The court emphasized the necessity for both the minor and a parent to understand and waive such fundamental rights before a guilty plea can be accepted.

Juvenile DelinquencyArson Second DegreeCriminal Mischief Fourth DegreeGuilty PleaParental NotificationRight to CounselRight to Remain SilentDue ProcessVacated PleaRemand
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Edwards v. Jet Blue Airways Corp.

Glenn Edwards initiated a putative class action against Jet Blue Airways Corporation, alleging violations of New York Labor Law, article 19, § 650 et seq., concerning overtime compensation. Edwards claimed that Jet Blue failed to pay him at 1.5 times his regular rate for hours worked beyond 40 that were exchanged with coworkers. Jet Blue sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting an exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) § 213 (b) (3) for air carriers, which it argued was incorporated into New York's 12 NYCRR 142-2.2. The court acknowledged the applicability of the FLSA exemption to Edwards due to Jet Blue's status as an air carrier. However, the court ruled that 12 NYCRR 142-2.2 still mandates overtime pay at 1.5 times the basic minimum hourly rate for exempt employees, which in this context means their regular pay rate plus one half times the New York State minimum wage. Finding that Edwards' complaint sufficiently alleged inadequate overtime compensation under New York law based on this calculation, the court denied Jet Blue's motion to dismiss.

Class actionOvertime payLabor LawFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Railway Labor Act (RLA)Minimum wageAir carrier exemptionWage and hour disputeMotion to dismissNew York employment law
References
18
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04174
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2021

Edwards v. State Univ. Constr. Fund

Stephen Edwards was injured during renovations at SUNY Oneonta when he allegedly hit his head on a wooden beam supporting a scaffold and fell down stairs. Edwards and his wife commenced an action against the State University Construction Fund (owner), Fahs Construction Group, Inc. (general contractor), and Tim Duffek Contracting, Inc. (subcontractor), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), common-law negligence, and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court denied motions to dismiss by SUCF and Fahs, partially granted Duffek's motion, awarded contractual indemnification to SUCF and Fahs from Ralo Construction, Inc. (Edwards's employer), and denied Ralo's motion to dismiss third-party complaints. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment for SUCF and Fahs on Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, citing triable issues of fact regarding a dangerous condition and notice. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against Duffek. However, it reversed the premature award of contractual indemnification to SUCF and Fahs from Ralo due to unresolved questions of negligence, and granted Ralo's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claims.

Construction accidentScaffold injuryDangerous conditionPremises liabilityContractual indemnificationBreach of contractSummary judgmentLabor Law § 200 claimLabor Law § 241(6) claimCommon-law negligence
References
38
Case No. ADJ10849258
Regular
Dec 18, 2020

EDWARD KIM vs. OAKLAND ATHLETICS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by SEDGWICK CMS, RIVER CITY RASCALS, BRADENTON JUICE, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, FLORENCE FREEDOM dba CANTERBURY BASEBALL, KENTUCKY EMPLOYERS' MUTUAL

This case, Edward Kim v. Oakland Athletics et al., was pending reconsideration by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The parties have reached a proposed settlement while the matter was on reconsideration. To allow review of this settlement by the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ), the Board has rescinded its previous decision and returned the case to the trial level. This action is not a final decision on the merits, and the WCJ will now consider the settlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRescinded DecisionReturned to Trial LevelProposed SettlementWCJ ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeJuly 25 2019 DecisionEdward KimOakland Athletics
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campuzano v. Chea Hung Kim

In October 1987, New York City police officer Julio Campuzano, temporarily assigned to the FBI and sworn as a Special Deputy U.S. Marshal, was involved in an automobile accident in Bayonne, New Jersey, while on duty. Instead of seeking federal compensation, he received medical expense remuneration from New York City’s Worker’s Compensation Insurance Fund. Campuzano subsequently sued Mr. Kim in New York State court, who in turn filed a third-party suit for indemnification and contribution against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, after the case was removed to federal court. The United States moved to dismiss, arguing New Jersey law, which bars such claims against employers, should apply. However, the court applied New Jersey’s conflict of laws rules, which led to the application of New York law, thus denying the motion to dismiss.

Federal Tort Claims ActWorkers' CompensationChoice of LawGovernmental Interest TestThird-Party ClaimsIndemnificationContributionAutomobile AccidentFederal Employee LiabilityNew York Law
References
7
Case No. 2014-1493 W CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2016

People v. Oliva (Edward)

Edward P. Oliva appealed convictions for driving while ability impaired and two counts of passing a red signal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, dismissed the appeal concerning passing a red signal as abandoned due to lack of raised issues. The judgment convicting Oliva of driving while ability impaired was affirmed. The court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction, noting that Oliva consumed alcohol, exhibited signs of impairment such as glassy eyes and slurred speech, fled an accident scene at high speed, and refused a breath test. Oliva's defense, attributing his condition to fatigue and shock, was deemed meritless by the court.

Driving While Ability Impaired (DWAI)Vehicle and Traffic Law ViolationsAppellate Review of ConvictionSufficiency of EvidenceRefusal to Submit to Chemical TestConsciousness of GuiltLesser-Included OffensePolice ChaseOperating a Motor Vehicle Under InfluenceTraffic Accident
References
19
Case No. 533459
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Edward Hopeck

Claimant Edward Hopeck sustained a left knee injury in 1984, leading to a schedule loss of use award which was later increased in 2000. Following knee replacement surgery in 2006, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge marked the case for no further action pending new medical evidence. In 2020, after additional knee surgeries in 2017 and 2019, claimant sought further awards. However, both the WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the reopening of the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 123, citing the lapse of time since the injury and last payment. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that the claimant's decade-long inaction in pursuing awards constituted an abandonment of the claim, thus making the time limitations of § 123 applicable.

Workers' Compensation Law § 123Reopening of ClaimStatute of LimitationsSchedule Loss of Use AwardKnee InjuryAppellate ReviewClaim AbandonmentMedical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionJudicial Review
References
7
Case No. 534627
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Edward Zeltman

Claimant Edward Zeltman appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his claim for benefits, alleging neck, lower back, left shoulder, and consequential knee injuries from two incidents on March 15, 2019, while working for Infinigy Engineering, PLLC. The Board, affirming a WCLJ's ruling, found the claimant not credible due to delayed reporting of a slip and fall, inconsistent medical histories, lack of witnesses, and a potential motive to fabricate claims after being reassigned. The court affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Zeltman failed to establish a causal relationship between his injuries and employment, emphasizing the Board's role as the sole arbiter of witness credibility and its reasonable inferences from the evidence.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsCausally-Related InjuryCredibility AssessmentDelayed ReportingInconsistent Medical HistoriesSlip and FallHeavy Equipment LiftingPre-existing ConditionsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 318 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