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 Jared XX.

The petitioner appealed a Family Court order from Delaware County, which dismissed their application to declare Jared XX., Marisa XX., and Justine YY. as abused or neglected children. The initial proceeding alleged sexual abuse of Jared XX. by the respondent, leading to claims of derivative neglect for the other two children. Family Court dismissed the petition due to insufficient corroboration of Jared's out-of-court statements. On appeal, the court reviewed the Family Court's findings regarding the reliability of Jared's in-court testimony and the expert validation testimony, ultimately agreeing that the corroboration threshold was not met. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the petition.

Child protectionChild neglectChild abuseCorroboration of testimonyExpert witnessFamily CourtAppellate reviewSexual abuse allegationsEvidentiary standardsWitness credibility
References
12
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04798
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2019

Matter of Mario WW. v. Kristin XX.

Mario WW. commenced a paternity proceeding seeking to be adjudicated the father of a child born to Kristin XX., who was married to Brad XX. The Family Court initially dismissed the petition, and the Appellate Division remitted for a determination on the child's best interests regarding genetic testing. Upon remittal, the Family Court again dismissed the petition, applying the presumption of legitimacy and equitable estoppel, finding that genetic testing was not in the child's best interests. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, emphasizing the child's best interests, the stable family dynamic, and the presumption of legitimacy. The court also upheld a stay-away order of protection against Mario WW. due to his hostile behavior towards the respondents.

Paternity DisputeGenetic TestingBest Interests of ChildPresumption of LegitimacyEquitable EstoppelFamily Court Act Article 5Appellate DivisionOrder of ProtectionChild CustodyMarital Presumption
References
19
Case No. 529454
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2020

Matter of Mathena XX. v. Brandon YY.

The case involves a custody modification dispute between Mathena XX. (mother/appellant) and Brandon YY. (father/respondent) regarding their two children. Following the father's relocation out of the originally agreed-upon school district, both parents sought to modify a prior custody order to designate their respective residences as the children's primary residence for school enrollment. The Family Court of Tioga County granted the father's petition, giving him primary decision-making authority for educational matters and designating his residence in Interlaken, Seneca County, as primary for school enrollment. The mother appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Family Court's order, finding its determination to be amply supported by the record and in the children's best interests, specifically upholding the findings regarding parental credibility and the overall assessment of factors for a best interests determination.

Custody ModificationParental RelocationSchool EnrollmentBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court Act Article 6Joint Legal CustodyPhysical CustodyAppellate ReviewCredibility FindingsParenting Schedule
References
7
Case No. ADJ7618189
Regular
Nov 26, 2012

RUBEN OROZCO vs. EXACT STAFF, INC.; TOWER/NSM INSUREX, Administered by YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP

This case involves lien claimants Anderson Chiropractic and Santana Lopez seeking reconsideration of an order disallowing their liens. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration because a crucial exhibit, Exhibit 6, was incomplete in the record. Lien claimants are ordered to file a complete copy of Exhibit 6 within 10 days to allow the Board to properly review the case. This action is necessary for the Board to study the facts and applicable law concerning the disallowed liens.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantsFindings and OrdersDisallowed liensExhibit 6Administrative law judgeWCJSupplemental pleadingSan Francisco
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2000

In re Robert XX.

The case involves an appeal from the Family Court of Greene County, which terminated the parental rights of the respondent mother over her child, Robert XX. The termination was based on findings of mental illness and permanent neglect. The respondent suffered from a psychotic personality disorder and schizophrenia, and consistently refused treatment, hindering her ability to care for her child. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding clear and convincing evidence that the respondent's untreated mental illness rendered her incapable of providing proper care, and that her failure to address this issue constituted permanent neglect. It also upheld the Family Court's procedural decisions, including the lack of a separate dispositional hearing.

Parental Rights TerminationMental IllnessPermanent NeglectChild WelfareFamily LawAppellate ReviewSchizophreniaPsychotic DisorderFoster CareParenting Skills
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Rita XX.

This case involves an appeal from two Family Court orders concerning child abuse and neglect in Broome County. The respondents, parents of two children, appealed the court's finding that the father abused one child and both parents neglected the children. The allegations stemmed from the father, Daniel XX., kicking his nine-year-old daughter, Rita, in the vagina. Medical evidence supported the abuse claim, despite the child initially changing her story. The Family Court found the father's testimony incredible and determined he abused Rita. The mother was found to have neglected the children due to her failure to protect them from domestic violence and the father's assault. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's determinations, finding sufficient evidence of abuse and neglect and rejecting the mother's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Child AbuseChild NeglectDomestic ViolencePhysical InjuryFamily Court Act Article 10Fact-Finding HearingPreponderance of EvidenceWitness CredibilityMedical TestimonyParental Responsibility
References
6
Case No. NA-XXXXX-XX/XX
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jonathan C.

This case involves an Article 10 child abuse and neglect proceeding initiated by the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) against respondent mother Kimberly F. and her former paramour, Mr. O., concerning three children. The court addresses two motions: one from ACS to compel testimony from Ms. F.’s mental health providers regarding her insight and parenting capabilities, which Ms. F. and her therapists sought to quash citing therapist-patient privilege and HIPAA. The second motion is from Brian C., Ms. F.’s former paramour, seeking to intervene as Jonathan C.'s father, which was previously disavowed by him. The court denied Ms. F.'s motion to quash the subpoenas, compelling the therapists' testimony while limiting disclosure of therapeutic records. It also denied Mr. C.'s motion to intervene, citing the doctrine of judicial estoppel due to his prior inconsistent statements regarding paternity. However, the court granted his alternative request for DNA testing to definitively establish Jonathan's biological father, prioritizing the accurate determination of paternity over judicial estoppel.

Child abuseChild neglectTherapist-patient privilegeHIPAAMental Hygiene LawFamily Court ActSubpoena quashIntervention motionPaternity disputeDNA testing
References
26
Case No. ADJ13120564
Regular
Sep 15, 2022

Hector Barragan vs. Stanford Healthcare, Safety National Casualty, Tristar Insurance Group

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved an applicant seeking reconsideration of a prior order that deemed an EAMS document discoverable. The Board admitted the document into evidence as Exhibit XX but reversed the prior ruling on discoverability. The Board found the document not relevant to the applicant's alleged foot and ankle injuries, nor was there a waiver of privacy. Consequently, the defendant is prohibited from producing the document without WCAB authorization.

EAMSdiscoverablerelevantprivacy waiverQualified Medical EvaluatorPetition for Removalin camera reviewinadmissibilitycumulative injurydeposition transcript
References
12
Case No. ADJ394613 (VNO 0530712) ADJ2266356 (VNO 0530710)
Regular
Apr 01, 2016

MARIA ESTRELLA vs. NATIONAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal to a lien claimant after a judge excluded four exhibits. The WCAB found that two of the excluded exhibits, representing certifications and financial interest notifications, were sufficiently listed on the Pre-Trial Conference Statement. Therefore, the WCAB admitted these two exhibits into evidence, amending the judge's prior order. The remainder of the judge's order, excluding the other two exhibits, was affirmed.

Petition for RemovalLien ClaimantWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJExhibitsPrejudiceIrreparable HarmPre-Trial Conference StatementServiceNotification of Certification
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

First Employees Insurance Co. v. Skinner

First Employees Insurance Company appealed a worker's compensation judgment concerning Jessie Skinner, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to send all exhibits to the jury during deliberation. The court re-evaluated its prior decision in Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Applegate, which held Rule 281 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to be mandatory. After reviewing statutory language and precedents, the court concluded that Rule 281 is permissive, allowing trial courts discretion in deciding whether to send exhibits to the jury upon a litigant's request. Factors for consideration include timeliness, cumbersomeness, cumulative nature, and the exhibit's character. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal, noting the litigant's request, the timing during deliberation, and the voluminous nature of some exhibits. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationJury DeliberationExhibitsRule 281Texas Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial DiscretionMandatory vs PermissiveHarmless ErrorAbuse of DiscretionAppellate Review
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 315 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