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

Ficken v. Vocational Education & Extension Board of Suffolk

The petitioner sought review of her employment termination as a secretary by the Vocational Education and Extension Board of the County of Suffolk (VEEB) and requested reinstatement with back pay. She argued that she was discharged without the procedural protections afforded to civil servants under Civil Service Law § 75. VEEB contended that the petitioner was not covered by these protections. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing her reinstatement and back pay. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the petitioner's position, though designated 'unclassified' by Suffolk County, did not fit any category under Civil Service Law § 35, thus classifying it as 'classified' and entitling her to § 75 protections. The court emphasized that the petitioner could not be denied these rights until a proper classification was established.

Civil Service LawEmployment TerminationReinstatementBack PayUnclassified ServiceClassified ServiceCivil Servant RightsDue ProcessArticle 78 ProceedingSuffolk County
References
5
Case No. ADJ3162900 (LAO 0866179)
Regular
Aug 23, 2012

ROBERTO GOMEZ vs. GREIF BROTHERS CORPORATION, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case concerns a lien claimant's request for reconsideration of a disallowed lien due to alleged due process violations regarding witness testimony. The Appeals Board initially ordered responses from attorney Hannan and hearing representative Surujnarain regarding these allegations. While Hannan received an extension, Surujnarain's late joinder to the extension request, citing a need for legal counsel due to his non-attorney status, was ultimately granted. Surujnarain now has until September 7, 2012, to file his verified response, with no further extensions to be granted absent a compelling showing of good cause.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings & OrderLien ClaimantDue ProcessWitness TestimonySanctionsPetition for Extension of TimeVerified ResponsePenalty of Perjury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Christopher

The court considered a petition by the Broome County Social Services Department for an extension of placement for the child Elizabeth. Elizabeth was placed in foster care following the death of her half-brother, for which her mother, Sally, was convicted of criminally negligent homicide. Despite the Department's placement of Elizabeth with her mother during the proceedings, the court found Sally lacked credibility, insight, and responsibility for her actions. Expert testimony from two clinical psychologists highlighted the high risk to Elizabeth in her mother's care due to the mother's personality issues and lack of accountability. The court granted the extension of placement for 12 months but ordered Elizabeth's removal from her mother's home, directing the Department to place her in an appropriate alternative setting while both parents receive necessary services.

Child WelfareFamily Court ActExtension of PlacementChild AbuseCriminally Negligent HomicideParental RightsBest Interests of the ChildPsychological EvaluationCredibility AssessmentParental Responsibility
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American International Telephone, Inc. v. Mony Travel Services, Inc.

Plaintiff American International Telephone, Inc. (AIT) sought an extension of time to serve defendant Carlos Duran, president of Mony Travel Services of Florida, Inc., after initial attempts at service were unsuccessful and Duran claimed to have moved. The court found AIT exercised reasonably diligent efforts and that extending the deadline would not prejudice Duran, who was aware of the action. Concurrently, Mony Travel Services of Florida moved for a protective order against depositions of Duran and its counsel, Francis Markey. The court denied the protective order for Duran's deposition, allowing inquiry into service of process issues. However, the protective order for Markey was granted, as mailing a copy of the complaint to an attorney is not a valid method of service under Florida law. The court granted AIT an extension to serve Duran until October 26, 2001, with conditions regarding deposition timing.

Service of ProcessExtension of TimeProtective OrderDepositionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJurisdictionGood CausePrejudiceFlorida LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Busch v. Lewis

The court addressed two motions. Firstly, a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was considered and subsequently denied, with the imposition of ten dollars in costs. Secondly, a motion seeking an extension of time to answer was reviewed. This motion was granted, allowing the respondent an additional five days to answer following the service of the order. The decision was rendered by a panel of judges including Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Dore, and Cohn, JJ.

Leave to Appeal DeniedExtension of Time GrantedAppellate ProcedureCourt CostsService of Order
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1986

In re Belinda B.

The appellate court reviewed a Family Court order that dismissed a petition by the Monroe County Department of Social Services (DSS) for an extension of foster care placement for two children, Belinda and Carol Sue. The Family Court had found that DSS failed to prove the natural parents' inability to care for their children. The appellate court affirmed this finding but modified the order, remitting the case for a hearing to determine the best interests of the children. The court emphasized that even if parents are deemed fit, extraordinary circumstances, such as extended foster care and pending permanent neglect proceedings, necessitate a best interests determination before the children are immediately returned to their natural parents. The decision highlighted the procedural complexities and suggested legislative review.

Child NeglectFoster Care ExtensionParental RightsBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court ProcedureAppellate ReviewChild WelfareMonroe CountyLaw GuardianDSS
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Almoravids v. Chase Manhattan Bank

The employer-respondent moved to dismiss an appeal as untimely. The Board had previously affirmed a referee's determination in June 1977, disallowing a claim. The appellant did not appeal this decision but sought reconsideration. In December 1977, the Board advised no further action was warranted. In January 1978, the appellant requested an appeal of both the June and December 1977 determinations. The appeal from the June 1977 decision was deemed untimely under Workers’ Compensation Law § 23, leading to the granting of the employer-respondent's motion to dismiss that appeal. The appellant's separate motion for an extension of time to prosecute the appeal was also denied without costs.

Appeal DismissalUntimely AppealWorkers' Compensation LawMotion GrantedMotion DeniedExtension of TimeBoard DecisionReconsideration Request
References
0
Case No. ADJ2531693 (MON 0284829)
Regular
Feb 22, 2012

VIRGINIA SIEGEL vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES - EXTENSION DEPARTMENT BUSINESS, OCTAGON RISK SERVICES

This case involves the award of additional attorney's fees to applicant's counsel following a successful defense of a Petition for Writ of Review at the appellate level. The Court of Appeal had previously remanded the matter to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) for the purpose of making this supplemental award. Applicant's attorney requested $2,400.00 for six hours of work at $400.00 per hour, plus $179.07 in costs. The WCAB found this amount reasonable given the attorney's extensive experience and the successful outcome. An award of $2,579.07 in appellate attorney's fees and costs was made against the defendant.

Labor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealSupplemental Attorney's FeeAppellate Attorney's FeeRemandWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReasonable Attorney FeesLegal ServicesPetition for Award of Attorney's Fee
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Lindsay W.

The Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York appealed an order from the Family Court, Queens County, which effectively dismissed a proceeding to continue the placement of a neglected child, Lindsay W. The Family Court had denied the Commissioner's request for a temporary extension of placement, citing the process server's error in service as an invalid excuse. The appellate court ruled that the Family Court abused its discretion by not granting the temporary extension, finding that the Commissioner had shown 'good cause' through good-faith attempts to notify the respondent mother and an excusable process server misunderstanding. The case was reversed and remitted to the Family Court to determine if the Commissioner's initial petition for extension, filed 11 days late, was also for 'good cause', which would then lead to a merits hearing on the extension of placement.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActPlacement ExtensionService of ProcessAbuse of DiscretionGood CauseParental RightsAppellate ReviewRemittiturTimely Filing
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chavan v. Drysdale

The petitioners, nonimmigrant aliens working as specialty cooks, challenged deportation orders after their L-1 visa extensions were denied by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The INS had based its denial partly on an interpretation of legislative history suggesting a three-year maximum stay for L-1 visa holders. The District Court found that the INS had misconstrued congressional intent regarding L-1 visa extensions, noting that further extensions might be warranted in certain cases. Consequently, the Court granted a writ of habeas corpus, cancelling the deportation proceedings and remanding the matter to the INS for reconsideration of the L-1 extension denials. Additionally, the INS was instructed to give due consideration to the petitioners' applications for adjustment to permanent resident status, especially since their visa priority date was current.

Immigration LawHabeas CorpusL-1 VisaVisa ExtensionDeportation ProceedingsDiscretionary AuthorityJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionAdjustment of StatusPermanent Resident
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 530 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