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
Nov 09, 1995

U.N.F. Services Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America

The plaintiff, U.N.F. Services, Inc., a New York corporation, initiated an action against Mountain States Mutual and Casualty Co., a New Mexico corporation that provided its workers' compensation insurance. The suit sought damages for breach of contract and negligence. Mountain States appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Mountain States' actions, including mailing policies and collecting premiums in New York, constituted sufficient 'doing business' and 'minimum contacts' for personal jurisdiction. The court also rejected arguments regarding an exception in the Insurance Law and found no merit to the claim of an inconvenient forum.

JurisdictionBreach of ContractNegligencePersonal JurisdictionForum Non ConveniensInsurance LawMinimum ContactsAppellate ReviewCorporate LawWorkers' Compensation Insurance
References
12
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02391 [193 AD3d 932]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2021

Matter of Zamir F. (Ricardo B.)

The Administration for Children's Services appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which had dismissed petitions alleging that Ricardo B. neglected Zamir F. through sexual abuse and derivatively neglected his other children, Elijah B., Jordan B., Jeremiah B., and Messiah B. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Family Court's order. It found that the petitioner had sufficiently established neglect and derivative neglect by a preponderance of the evidence, concluding that the testimony of the petitioner's child sexual abuse expert reliably corroborated Zamir's out-of-court statements. The court also determined that the Family Court had erred in its credibility assessment, particularly in preferring the father's expert's testimony. The matter was remitted to the Family Court for a dispositional hearing and the issuance of a dispositional order.

Child NeglectSexual AbuseDerivative NeglectFamily Court Act Article 10Corroboration of Child StatementsExpert TestimonyCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewParental DutiesRisk of Harm
References
8
Case No. ADJ4392577 (LBO 0392493)
Regular
Jul 18, 2011

JOSE HERNANDEZ vs. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICES, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PA

This case addresses a lien claim for interpreter services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration and denied the lien claimant's petition. The WCAB found that the lien claimant failed to meet its burden of proof by not establishing that the applicant actually required interpreter services. Therefore, the lien for interpreting services was denied in its entirety.

Medical Provider NetworkMPNLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardCompromise and ReleaseInterpreter ServicesBurden of ProofDue ProcessLabor Code
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07122 [165 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Matter of Alexandria F. (George R.)

This case involves consolidated proceedings concerning the alleged abuse and neglect of three children, Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W.R., by George R. The Family Court, Nassau County, found George R. severely abused Alexandria F. and derivatively abused Adalila R. and George W.R., also finding neglect of all three children. Additionally, the Family Court denied a petition for custody and access filed by Adalila R.-S. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Family Court's order by deleting the 'severe' designation from the abuse finding regarding Alexandria F., as George R. was not her legal parent at the time. The court affirmed the findings of abuse against Alexandria F. and derivative abuse against Adalila R. and George W.R. Crucially, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's decision not to treat George R. as the father of Adalila R. and George W.R., citing formal judicial admissions by DSS. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings concerning Adalila R. and George W.R., including a re-evaluation of reunification efforts and the appropriateness and duration of protection orders. The denial of Adalila R.-S.'s custody and access petition was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDerivative abuseParental rightsPaternityOrders of protectionCustody and accessFamily Court ActAppellate reviewRemittal
References
18
Case No. ADJ15329380
Regular
Oct 31, 2025

BERTHA VALERIO vs. KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES, INC.; XL INSURANCE

Defendant sought reconsideration of a Findings and Award (F&A) from August 5, 2025, concerning an injury sustained by applicant Bertha Valerio on September 9, 2021. The F&A found that applicant's injury was AOE/COE, defendant failed to prove improper treatment outside the Medical Provider Network (MPN), and lien claimant Joyce Altman Interpreting, Inc. established their market rate for interpreting services. Defendant contended that medical treatment and interpreter services were unreasonable due to treatment outside the MPN and failure to adhere to MTUS/ACOEM guidelines, and that the market rate for interpreter services was not properly established. The Appeals Board denied the petition, agreeing with the WCJ that defendant failed to sustain its burden of proof on the MPN issue, the MTUS/ACOEM guideline issue was not raised at trial, and lien claimant properly established their market rate.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardMedical Provider NetworkMPNRequests for AuthorizationRFAsLien ClaimantMarket RateLabor Code Section 4600
References
10
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01310 [169 AD3d 549]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Matter of Samantha F. (Edwin F.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Family Court, Bronx County, which found that respondent Edwin F. sexually abused the eldest child and derivatively neglected his other children. The appeal was found to be properly taken from an appealable order. The court determined that the finding of sexual abuse was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, including the child's detailed out-of-court statements corroborated by the mother's testimony, a sibling's statements, and expert testimony. The sexual abuse also supported the finding of derivative neglect, as it demonstrated the respondent's defective understanding of parental obligations, placing other children at substantial risk.

Child NeglectSexual AbuseDerivative NeglectAppellate ReviewFamily Court ProceedingsCorroborated TestimonyExpert Witness TestimonyParental ObligationsRisk AssessmentChild Protection Services
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Peter F.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Ulster County, which terminated respondent's parental rights over his son, Peter F., on the grounds of abandonment pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The respondent, Peter F.'s father, had a history of sexual abuse and neglect towards Peter's older sister, leading to supervised visitation with Peter and eventually Peter's placement in foster care. The petitioner, a social services agency, initiated proceedings after alleging respondent failed to plan for Peter's return, visit the child, or keep the agency informed of his whereabouts. The Family Court found clear and convincing evidence of abandonment during the six months prior to the petition's filing, as respondent made no attempts to contact the petitioner, and that he was not discouraged from doing so. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, rejecting respondent's argument that petitioner bore the burden to prove lack of good cause for non-contact. The court reiterated that once abandonment is proven by the petitioner, the burden shifts to the respondent to demonstrate an inability to maintain contact or being prevented/discouraged from doing so, a burden the respondent failed to meet despite various claims of calling the caseworker, address changes, and a hernia operation. The Appellate Division found the Family Court's credibility determinations were well-supported by the record.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbandonmentSocial Services LawAppellate ReviewFamily Court JurisdictionUlster CountyFoster CareChild WelfareBurden of ProofCredibility Determinations
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 07675
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2014

Matter of Yu F. (Fen W.)

This case involves a child neglect proceeding where the mother, Fen W., appealed from a Family Court order finding her to have neglected her child, Yu F. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the appeal, limiting its scope to the finding of neglect, as the dispositional order had expired and was made upon the mother's default. The court affirmed the Family Court's determination, finding that the petitioner, Administration for Children's Services, proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother neglected the child due to her untreated mental illness. Testimony from a psychiatrist and a hospital social worker indicated the mother's inability to provide adequate supervision and guardianship, placing the child in imminent danger. The evidence showed the mother refused to provide care plans for the child during her hospitalization and relied on the nine-year-old child for care.

Child NeglectFamily Court Act Article 10Untreated Mental IllnessParental SupervisionGuardianshipAppellate ReviewDefault JudgmentPreponderance of EvidenceImminent DangerPsychosis Disorder
References
8
Case No. ADJ7259313, ADJ7259058
Regular
May 13, 2013

JOSE GARATE vs. LEADING EDGE AVIATION SERVICES, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CHUBB SERVICES CORPORATION

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in a maximum of four sentences: This case involves lien claimants who petitioned for reconsideration after their liens were dismissed for failure to pay the required activation fee as mandated by Labor Code section 4903.06. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's report which found the petition improper due to multiple claimants filing as one and violation of service rules. The judge's report emphasized that the lien activation fee was not paid by the lien claimants, necessitating dismissal with prejudice per statutory language. Therefore, the Board concluded the lien claimants' arguments regarding jurisdiction and service were without merit and upheld the dismissal orders.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantsActivation FeeDismissal of LiensLabor Code Section 4903.06Due ProcessJurisdictionService of OrdersFinal Orders
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 9,590 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