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. 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. ADJ10954606
Regular
Mar 09, 2020

DORIT DAVIDOFF vs. UCLA MEDICAL CENTER, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify findings of fact regarding industrial injury AOE/COE. The Board rescinded the previous decision and substituted a new Findings and Award to specifically address the stipulated injury to the lumbar spine, ensuring the award of permanent disability benefits was properly supported. The Board clarified that stipulations agreed upon by the parties should be treated as findings of fact to meet statutory requirements. The decision confirms permanent disability for the left ankle, thoracic spine, and lumbar spine, denies claims for neck and knee injuries, and orders further medical treatment and attorney fees.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryLumbar SpineThoracic SpineLeft AnkleAOE/COEStipulationJurisdictional FactsFindings of Fact
References
1
Case No. ADJ13157138
Regular
Sep 15, 2025

EDDY PUTMAN vs. BALTIMORE ORIOLES, USF&G, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY

Defendant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's Findings of Fact, Award, and Order issued on June 12, 2025, which awarded applicant temporary and permanent disability. The defendant contested the retroactive disability awards, the calculation of the average weekly wage, and the admissibility of medical reports by Dr. Michael Einbund, given a later date of injury finding. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, denied the petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings regarding the disability awards, the applicant's average weekly wage, and the admissibility of Dr. Einbund's reports, reasoning that the claim's injury period predated January 1, 2005, making the old procedural rules applicable.

Permanent DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityDate of InjuryLabor Code Section 5412PQMEPetition for ReconsiderationAverage Weekly WageAdmissibility of Medical ReportsLabor Code Section 4062.2Substantial Medical Evidence
References
11
Case No. ADJ8759846
Regular
Jun 05, 2025

Manuel Agurto vs. Peterberg Construction, Inc.; Praetorian Insurance Work Comp Program

Applicant, Manuel Agurto, seeks reconsideration of the February 4, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) where the WCJ found injury to his psyche and determined his average weekly wage. The WCJ's Opinion on Decision (OOD) also included findings of injury to other body parts and awarded future medical for some. Applicant challenged various interlocutory issues. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the Petition for Reconsideration to rescind the F&O and substitute it with a Findings, Award, and Order (FA&O) to reflect all of the WCJ's findings, awards, and orders, including additional body parts injured and an award of future medical, while deferring other issues for further development of the record. The Board admonished applicant's attorneys for frivolous conduct.

AOE/COEpsyche injuryAMEPQMEoccupational group 480Labor Code 4453(c)(4)petition for reconsiderationfinal orderinterlocutory issuesremoval standard
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2014

In Re the Arbitration Between Delaney Group, Inc. & Holmgren Enterprises, Inc.

This case involves cross-appeals from a Supreme Court order concerning an arbitration dispute between a prime contractor (Petitioner) and a subcontractor (Respondent) on a public work project. Respondent initially sought additional payment via arbitration, leading to an award that included credits for Petitioner. After a request for clarification, the arbitrator issued a modified award removing these credits. Petitioner then sought to vacate both the original and modified awards, while Respondent sought to confirm the modified award. The Supreme Court vacated both arbitration awards and remanded the case for a rehearing, finding that the arbitrator exceeded authority in modifying the award and imperfectly executed powers in the original award by failing to address a key stipulation. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, upholding the vacatur and remand of both arbitration awards.

ArbitrationContract DisputePublic Work ProjectSubcontractorPrime ContractorCross AppealsVacatur of AwardRemandArbitrator AuthorityCPLR 7511
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bart v. Miller

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court order and judgment confirming an arbitration award. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order because the right of direct appeal terminated with the entry of judgment. The judgment itself was affirmed. The appellant's argument that the award violated strong public policy was unpreserved for appellate review. Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly determined that the arbitrators' award was not made in manifest disregard of the law or facts, as the appellant failed to identify any disregarded legal principle.

Arbitration AwardAppeal DismissedJudgment AffirmedPublic Policy ArgumentUnpreserved for ReviewManifest Disregard of LawCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewNassau County Supreme CourtArbitrators' Award
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shimon v. Wong

Plaintiff Marilyn Shimon was awarded $75,000 for past pain and suffering and $25,000 for future pain and suffering in a personal injury action against defendant Dick J. Wong. The defendant conceded liability but moved to strike the award for future pain and suffering, arguing inconsistency with jury findings of no permanent or significant bodily limitation. Presiding District Judge Spatt reconciled the jury's verdict, interpreting the award as compensation for a non-permanent injury that prevented the plaintiff from performing usual activities for 90 out of 180 days, which could lead to future pain for a finite period. The court reviewed relevant precedents but distinguished them based on the specific medical and testimonial evidence presented by Shimon, including disc herniation and chronic pain. Ultimately, the court denied the defendant's motion, finding the jury's responses and damage award consistent with the evidence and ordered judgment to be entered according to the verdict.

Personal injuryJury verdictFuture pain and sufferingSerious injury thresholdNew York Insurance LawMotion to strikeVerdict consistencyEvidentiary supportMedical testimonyDisc herniation
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
Showing 1-10 of 32,235 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