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. ADJ3328242 (SAC 0369772)
Regular
Mar 07, 2009

FRANK R. SANTOS vs. AMERICAN AIR MECHANICAL, INC., FIRST COMP OMAHA for ENDURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant, Frank R. Santos, and defendants American Air Mechanical, Inc. and First Comp Omaha. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has issued an order denying reconsideration of a prior decision. The WCAB adopted the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge and gave great weight to their credibility determination. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration has been denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility FindingGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Denial of ReconsiderationAmerican Air MechanicalFirst Comp OmahaEndurance Insurance CompanyADJ3328242
References
1
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Breanna R.

The Family Court, Erie County, dismissed a petition alleging that the respondent father sexually abused his three children. On appeal, the order was unanimously reversed. The Appellate Division found that the out-of-court statements of the two oldest children describing incidents of sexual abuse by the father were sufficiently corroborated by validation testimony from a licensed psychologist, testimony from a CPS caseworker, age-inappropriate knowledge of sexual matters by the children, cross-corroborating accounts, and consistent behaviors. Consequently, Breanna R. and Giovanna R. were found to be abused children, and Giulianna R. was found to be a neglected child. The matter was remitted to Family Court, Erie County, for a dispositional hearing before a different judge.

child abusechild neglectsexual abuseFamily Court Actcorroborationout-of-court statementsvalidation testimonypsychological testingappellate reviewreversal
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 1981

J. A. R. Management Corp. v. Sweeney

J. A. R. Management Corp. sold an apartment building to J. R. R. Realty Co., allegedly violating a collective bargaining agreement with Local 32B-32J S.E.I.U., AFL-CIO by failing to give notice and ensure the buyer adopted the agreement. The union initiated arbitration against both J. A. R. and J. R. R. and filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against J. R. R. Petitioners J. A. R. and J. R. R. sought to vacate the arbitration notice, arguing NLRB pre-emption. The Supreme Court granted their motion. On appeal, the judgment was modified: the notice to arbitrate was vacated only for J. R. R. Realty Co., while the motion against J. A. R. Management Corp. was denied. Arbitration against J. A. R. is stayed pending the NLRB's resolution of claims against J. R. R., after which arbitration may proceed for any unresolved disputes arising from the collective bargaining agreement.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementNLRB Pre-emptionVacate Notice to ArbitrateEmployer-Union DisputeSale of BusinessSuccessor EmployerUnfair Labor PracticesStay of ArbitrationAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M.S. ex rel. R.R. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiff M.S., individually and on behalf of her autistic son R.R., brought an action against the New York City Department of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). M.S. sought tuition reimbursement for R.R.’s unilateral private school placement after challenging the adequacy of the Department’s proposed Individualized Education Program (IEP). An Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) initially sided with M.S., but a State Review Officer (SRO) reversed this decision, finding the IEP compliant with IDEA. In the federal district court, M.S. appealed the SRO's decision. The court, affording due deference to the SRO's expertise, upheld the SRO's finding that the Department’s IEP was both procedurally and substantively adequate, thereby denying M.S.'s motion for summary judgment and granting the Department's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActSpecial EducationAutismTuition ReimbursementIndividualized Education ProgramDue ProcessAdministrative AppealSummary JudgmentEducational LawDisability Rights
References
30
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 08350
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2015

Matter of Edubilio Andre R. (Andre R.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Family Court's orders of fact-finding and disposition, which determined that the respondent father, Andre R., permanently neglected his children. The Family Court had properly excused the petitioner agency, Cardinal McCloskey Community Services, from its duty to exercise diligent efforts for reunification. This decision was based on the father's felony conviction for sexual abuse, prior findings of sexual abuse against his daughter and medical neglect of his son, and expert testimony indicating that reunification would be traumatic for the children. The court noted the father's failure to participate in services or sexual offender programs while incarcerated. Additionally, appeals from the dispositional portions of the orders were dismissed due to the father's default at the hearings.

Child NeglectPermanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationSexual AbuseMedical NeglectDiligent Efforts ExcuseFamily Court AppealAppellate Division First DepartmentBest Interests of the ChildDefault at Dispositional Hearing
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Frank Y.

The case involves an appeal by Frank Z. against a Family Court order from Chemung County, dated January 27, 2003, which found his children neglected. The initial neglect proceedings in 2001 were based on the mother's physical abuse and Frank Z.'s failure to protect his children. After conditions including an order of protection against the mother, Frank Z. violated these terms by permitting the mother to have contact with the children and by inflicting corporal punishment. Following further hearings, the Family Court sustained the neglect petition and placed the children in petitioner's custody for one year. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the neglect finding, including Frank Z.'s willful violation of the protection order and corroborated statements from the children regarding corporal punishment.

Child NeglectFamily CourtOrder of ProtectionCorporal PunishmentChild AbuseAppellate ReviewCorroboration of Child StatementsParental ResponsibilityChild Welfare
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John R. v. State of New York Office of Children and Family Services

Petitioners Patricia R. and John R. were 'indicated' for child maltreatment after their children had continued contact with an uncle who had sexually abused their oldest daughter. Despite being explicitly instructed by a child protective services caseworker to prevent any contact, the children reported seeing and greeting the uncle. Patricia R. even sent the youngest child to the uncle's apartment. The petitioners challenged this determination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, requesting the report be amended to unfounded. However, the court confirmed the determination, finding substantial evidence that the children's physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired or in imminent danger due to the petitioners' failure to exercise a minimum degree of care in supervision.

Child MaltreatmentChild AbuseSexual AbuseParental NeglectFailure to SuperviseCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewSubstantial EvidenceFamily LawChild Protection
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re H. R.

The Law Guardian for the infant H. R. filed an application seeking an order to place H. R. in the certified foster home of Mr. and Mrs. S., where his three half-siblings already reside. H. R. was born drug-positive and with syphilis, requiring special care. The Rockland County Department of Social Services opposed the placement, citing New York State Department of Social Services regulations regarding household capacity and the special needs of the children, arguing it would jeopardize the care of the other eight children in the S. home. The court, citing New York Family Court Act § 1027-a, emphasized the strong state policy of keeping siblings together and the presumption that such placement is in the child's best interests. The court found the Department's opposition to be based on speculation rather than concrete evidence of harm, and therefore insufficient to overcome the legal presumption. Consequently, the court granted the application, directing the Commissioner of Social Services to place infant H. R. with the S. foster family, with an expectation of continued monitoring by the Commissioner.

Child welfaresibling placementfoster carebest interests of the childFamily Court ActDepartment of Social Servicesdrug addictionhandicapped childrenjudicial discretionNew York law
References
3
Case No. 530683
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2020

Matter of Isayah R

This case is an appeal from a Family Court order modifying a child's permanency plan from reunification with his mother to placement for adoption. The child, Isayah R., who has special needs, was removed from his mother, Shaye R., due to her substance abuse issues. A psychologist's evaluation recommended open adoption, which the Family Court granted. The mother appealed, arguing a lack of age-appropriate consultation with the child and insufficient reunification efforts by the petitioner. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, finding any error in child consultation harmless and that the modification was in the child's best interests.

Neglected ChildPermanency Plan ModificationPlacement for AdoptionReunification EffortsParental RightsSubstance Abuse IssuesPsychological EvaluationFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewBest Interests of the Child
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 1,025 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