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

Rockstone Capital LLC v. Metal

Rockstone Capital LLC appealed an order from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Bankruptcy Court had denied Rockstone's objection to a claim filed by Alisa Metal, debtor Keith Bub's former spouse, classifying it as a domestic support obligation (DSO) with highest priority. Rockstone argued that the Bankruptcy Court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing or allowing discovery, and by incorrectly finding Metal's claim to be a DSO. The District Court vacated the Bankruptcy Court's order and remanded the case, finding insufficient factual findings regarding the relative incomes of Bub and Metal at the time of their separation agreement, a critical factor for DSO determination. The case was remanded for further factual development, including potentially additional discovery or an evidentiary hearing.

BankruptcyDomestic Support ObligationDSOPriority ClaimDebtorFormer SpouseMarital ResidenceMortgage PaymentsIncome DiscrepancyFactual Development
References
49
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. SAC 0343316
Regular
Aug 14, 2007

MELODY BRIDGES vs. SCHURMAN FINE PAPERS, CRUM & FORSTER

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of its prior order dismissing the applicant's petition, finding it was timely filed. Despite the applicant's petition being deemed timely, the Board, adopting the Judge's report, ultimately denied reconsideration of the original April 4, 2007 findings. This rescinds the dismissal order but affirms the denial of the initial request for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition to VacateOpinion and Order Dismissing ReconsiderationTimeliness of FilingPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ Findings and OrdersTemporary DisabilitySalary During DisabilityProof of ServiceElectronic Case History Log
References
0
Case No. 12-cv-6439-RWS
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2012

In re Facebook, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael Zack moved to remand his proposed class action against NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and NASDAQ Stock Market LLC to New York State Court. Zack alleged negligence by NASDAQ regarding system design and conduct during the Facebook IPO on May 18, 2012, which led to order execution problems for investors. NASDAQ removed the action to the Southern District of New York, asserting federal question jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The court considered the 'Grable exception' to the well-pleaded complaint rule, finding that Zack's state-law negligence claims necessarily implicated substantial federal issues concerning NASDAQ's regulatory duties as a self-regulatory organization under the Exchange Act. Citing precedent like D’Alessio v. New York Stock Exch., the court determined that the case required construing federal securities laws and evaluating NASDAQ's federally defined duties, thus conferring federal question jurisdiction. Consequently, Zack's motion to remand was denied.

Federal Question JurisdictionMotion to RemandClass ActionSecurities Exchange ActNASDAQFacebook IPONegligenceSelf-Regulatory OrganizationExchange RulesS.D.N.Y.
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LTV Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (In Re Chateaugay Corp.)

Aetna Casualty and Surety Company appealed a Bankruptcy Court order approving a settlement involving National Fire Insurance Company, the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, and the Debtors (LTV Corporation and its affiliates). Aetna argued that the settlement, which released National Fire from all claims, improperly extinguished its potential claims as a co-surety against National Fire under a prior bond. The District Court found Aetna's appeal was not moot, rejecting the appellees' argument that substantial consummation of the bankruptcy plan made relief impossible. The court held that the bankruptcy court erred by extinguishing a non-debtor's (National Fire's) liability to a third party (Aetna) without a finding that such release was essential to the debtor's reorganization plan. The District Court vacated the Settlement Order and remanded the case to the bankruptcy court for modification to permit Aetna's claims against National Fire or for a finding that the Settlement Order is essential to the plan.

Bankruptcy LawSurety BondsWorkers' CompensationSettlement OrderNon-Debtor ReleaseMootness DoctrineEquitable PowersReorganization PlanCo-Surety ClaimsContribution and Indemnification
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Justin J.

Petitioner initiated neglect proceedings under Family Ct Act article 10 against respondent Arnold J. and his wife, alleging inadequate supervision, failure to administer prescribed medication, excessive corporal punishment, and drug abuse in the presence of their six children. The children were subsequently removed from the home. The Family Court of Clinton County found respondent and his wife committed acts constituting neglect and violated preliminary orders. Respondent appealed both findings. The appellate court noted that the appeal concerning the violation of preliminary orders had been previously resolved. Focusing on the neglect finding, the court found ample evidence to support the Family Court's determination, including respondent's admissions to inadequate supervision, using excessive corporal punishment, and smoking marihuana while caring for the children. Further testimony from a friend, a physician, and a caseworker corroborated the neglect allegations, detailing drug use, suspected medication sales, and respondent's erratic behavior endangering the children. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the order finding neglect and dismissed the appeal from the order finding respondent in violation of prior orders.

Child NeglectFamily CourtParental RightsSubstance AbuseCorporal PunishmentInadequate SupervisionAppellate ReviewEvidenceCredibilityDomestic Violence
References
7
Case No. 12-CV-4483
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2013

T.L. ex rel. A.L. v. New York City Department of Education

T.L., a student with severe learning disabilities and PICA, through her parents A.L. and R.L., sued the New York City Department of Education. The parents sought to reverse an SRO decision that had overturned an IHO's order for tuition reimbursement for T.L.'s special education for the 2011-2012 school year at the Rebecca School. The SRO had found the proposed public school placement at the Kennedy School appropriate. The federal court denied both motions for summary judgment and remanded the case to the SRO for further clarification and fact-finding, specifically concerning how the Kennedy School's physical environment would address T.L.'s severe PICA disorder, as the administrative record was deemed deficient in this analysis.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActSpecial EducationPICA DisorderAutism Spectrum DisorderIndividualized Education ProgramTuition ReimbursementAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSchool PlacementEducational Policy
References
29
Case No. ADJ9460638
Regular

DAVID HAMALIAN vs. HANSEL FORD, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration regarding a WCJ's order that rescinded a prior finding of no material defect in the defendant's Utilization Review (UR). This decision was based on a subsequent en banc ruling, *Dubon II*, which held that UR decisions are invalid only if untimely. Consequently, the Board rescinded the WCJ's Amended Findings & Order and remanded the case for further proceedings and a new decision consistent with *Dubon II*. The prior finding that the UR was not materially defective was rescinded, and the matter will be reheard to determine the UR's timeliness and applicant's need for surgery.

Utilization ReviewMaterial DefectDubon IDubon IIPetition for ReconsiderationFindings & OrderRescindedAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals BoardEn Banc Decision
References
3
Case No. ADJ3835561 (GOL 0099475)
Regular
Jul 12, 2011

CESAR HERNANDEZ vs. J.D. HUMANN LANDSCAPING, INC., NATIONAL LIABILITY AND FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATORS

The defendant sought reconsideration of an order setting aside a compromise and release, alleging the order was ex-parte and issued without notice. However, the defendant later withdrew its petition, explaining it was unaware of lien claimant correspondence and had since negotiated a resolution for attorney fees. The Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration and remanded the case to the trial level for further proceedings. This action allows for reinstatement of the original compromise and release and approval of the negotiated stipulation for attorney fees.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Setting Aside Order Approving Compromise and ReleaseEx-parteLien ClaimantEstate of Michael StevensStipulation and AwardAttorney FeesRemandTrial Level
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 30,640 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