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 Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of I-Conscious R. (George S.)

This case involves an appeal concerning a Family Court order that determined a respondent father abused and neglected his daughter and derivatively abused and neglected his son. The appellate court affirmed the fact-finding order, concluding that the petitioner presented a preponderance of evidence, including medical findings of genital herpes in the child, indicative of sexual abuse. The court upheld the neglect finding due to the father's failure to secure timely medical care for his daughter's severe symptoms. Additionally, the respondent's arguments regarding the suggestiveness of interviews, the testimony of his expert witness, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were all rejected by the court. An appeal against a separate order of protection was dismissed due to abandonment.

Child AbuseChild NeglectSexual AbuseGenital HerpesMedical EvidenceFamily Court ProceedingsSufficiency of EvidenceCredibility AssessmentIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. CA 11-02000
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2012

OLSEN, MICHAEL JAMES v. KOZLOWSKI, SHIRLEY F.

Plaintiff Michael James Olsen commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained from falling during residence construction. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants Louis F. Kozlowski and Shirley F. Kozlowski (property owners) cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted dismissal against Louis F. Kozlowski and denied dismissal against Shirley F. Kozlowski, also granting plaintiff's motion against Shirley F. Kozlowski. The Appellate Division modified the order, denying plaintiff's motion in its entirety, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether Shirley F. Kozlowski was an officer of the employer, which could bar the action under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6).

Personal InjuryLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationOfficer LiabilityEmployer ImmunityConstruction AccidentFall from Height
References
20
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 Monique M.

The mother appealed a fact-finding order that found she abused her child Sonique M. and derivatively abused Monique M., Treston D., and Daymondray T., and two dispositional orders. The evidence showed the mother allowed her boyfriend, against whom an order of protection was issued, back into her home, where he sexually abused Sonique M., and the mother failed to intervene. However, the Family Court erred by issuing the dispositional orders without first conducting a mandatory dispositional hearing, which violated due process. The appellate court reversed the orders of disposition and remitted the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, for a dispositional hearing before a different judge due to concerns about the original judge's impartiality.

Child AbuseDerivative AbuseDispositional HearingFamily Court Act Article 10Parental JudgmentOrder of Protection ViolationSexual AbuseJudicial ImpartialityDue ProcessRemittitur
References
11
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. ADJ16326594
Regular
Oct 31, 2025

Peter Pham vs. Southern California Edison

Defendant sought removal of a WCJ's December 12, 2023 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), which denied their motion for a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The defendant argued that the applicant's email to the QME constituted impermissible ex parte contact. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinding the F&O, and substituting new Findings of Fact that the email was indeed impermissible ex parte contact, thereby ordering a replacement QME panel. Additionally, while earlier QME reports and deposition testimony by Dr. Weiss remain in evidence, her report dated July 22, 2023, was stricken to preserve the appearance of impartiality in the medical evaluation process.

Ex parte contactQualified Medical EvaluatorRemoval petitionFindings of Fact and OrderLabor Code Section 4062.3Appearance of impartialityMedical evaluation processReplacement QME panelPsychiatric injuryStipulated facts
References
14
Case No. ADJ15071496
Regular
Aug 18, 2025

VI TRI LIEU, CHAI SAECHAO vs. BOTTLING GROUP dba PEPSICO, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration in the case of Vi Tri Lieu (deceased) and Chai Saechao against Bottling Group dba Pepsico and Ace American Insurance Company. The petition challenged a WCJ's Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) from June 5, 2025, concerning injury AOE/COE and the submission of Dr. Mahmud's report to a QME. The Board rescinded the F&O, removing the finding of injury AOE/COE, but affirmed the order allowing Dr. Mahmud's report and applicant's cover letter to be sent to Panel QME Dr. McClintock-Greenberg for review. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

AOE/COEPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorPanel QMEDr. Mahmud reportDr. McClintock-Greenbergsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmthreshold issue
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Joshua J.

The father appealed a Family Court order that found he neglected his child, Joshua. The neglect finding was based on the father's refusal to allow DSS workers and police into his home for an unannounced visit, despite a prior agreement to cooperate with DSS supervision. The father argued he refused entry for safety reasons, citing a past robbery and concerns about impersonators, and that Joshua was found clean, healthy, and safe. The appellate court reversed the Family Court's order, finding that DSS failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Joshua's condition was impaired or in imminent danger due to the father's actions. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding was dismissed.

Child NeglectChild Protective ServicesFamily Court ActParental RightsAppellate ReviewPreponderance of EvidenceDSS SupervisionUnannounced VisitsHome Entry RefusalChild Safety
References
7
Case No. ADJ17808664
Regular
Oct 22, 2025

Edith Gomez vs. Garfield Beach CVS, LLC; Indemnity Insurance Company of North America

The defendant petitioned for removal from a WCJ's Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued on June 11, 2025, which found medical opinions unsubstantial and ordered a discovery plan. The defendant argued that the discovery plan violated Labor Code section 5502(e)(3) and that existing medical reporting was substantial evidence. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the original F&O, and substituted a new F&O, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. The new F&O stated that opinions from Renee Kohanim, D.C., and Dabney Blankenship, Ph.D., were not substantial medical evidence, but Dr. David Edelman's studies were.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial Medical EvidenceLabor Code Section 5502(e)(3)Discovery PlanQualified Medical EvaluatorAgreed Medical ExaminerFindings of Fact and OrderRescindSubstitute
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 30,877 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