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
Dec 01, 2010

Commissioner of Social Services v. Dimarcus C.

The Family Court in New York County denied the appellant's motion for genetic testing and affirmed an order of filiation declaring the appellant to be the father of the subject child. The court found it was in the child's best interest to estop the respondent from denying paternity, as the respondent had consistently presented himself as the father to family, friends, and the child, providing support and care. Additionally, the 12-year-old child believed the respondent was his father. The court was not required to identify the biological father, having already dismissed a petition against another individual who was excluded by DNA testing, and a father-son relationship existed between the child and the respondent.

Paternity DisputeFiliation OrderEquitable EstoppelChild WelfareParental RightsGenetic Testing DenialAppellate ReviewFamily Court DecisionBest Interest of ChildImplied Paternity
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2005

In Re CKG

This case before the Supreme Court of Tennessee addresses a novel question of legal maternity stemming from assisted reproduction. An unmarried couple, Dr. Charles K.G. (genetic father) and Ms. Cindy C. (gestational mother), used anonymously donated eggs fertilized by Charles's sperm, which Cindy carried to term, giving birth to triplets. After their relationship ended, Cindy filed a parentage action for custody and child support. Charles contested her parental standing due to a lack of genetic connection. The juvenile court and Court of Appeals found Cindy to be the legal mother, applying an "intent test." The Supreme Court affirmed Cindy's legal maternal status but vacated the "intent test" and estoppel findings. The Court established legal maternity based on a narrow set of factors: the pre-birth mutual intent for Cindy to be the legal mother and accept parental responsibilities; Cindy's gestation and birth of the children as her own; and the absence of a dispute with the genetic mother. The Court explicitly limited its holding to the specific facts, calling for legislative action on broad assisted reproduction policies. The judgments on custody, child support, and visitation were affirmed.

Parentage ActionAssisted ReproductionEgg DonationGestational CarrierLegal MaternityCustody DisputeChild SupportIntent TestGenetic TestConstitutional Rights
References
37
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04798
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2019

Matter of Mario WW. v. Kristin XX.

Mario WW. commenced a paternity proceeding seeking to be adjudicated the father of a child born to Kristin XX., who was married to Brad XX. The Family Court initially dismissed the petition, and the Appellate Division remitted for a determination on the child's best interests regarding genetic testing. Upon remittal, the Family Court again dismissed the petition, applying the presumption of legitimacy and equitable estoppel, finding that genetic testing was not in the child's best interests. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, emphasizing the child's best interests, the stable family dynamic, and the presumption of legitimacy. The court also upheld a stay-away order of protection against Mario WW. due to his hostile behavior towards the respondents.

Paternity DisputeGenetic TestingBest Interests of ChildPresumption of LegitimacyEquitable EstoppelFamily Court Act Article 5Appellate DivisionOrder of ProtectionChild CustodyMarital Presumption
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Morton

Michael Wayne Morton, convicted of his wife's murder in 1987, sought post-conviction forensic DNA testing of various pieces of evidence under chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The district court partially denied his motion, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the denial of testing for evidence related to a separate murder and for fingerprint evidence, finding these did not meet the statutory requirements of being "secured in relation to the offense" or containing "biological material." However, the court reversed the denial for a blood-stained bandana recovered near the crime scene. The court concluded that if DNA testing on the bandana yielded exculpatory results (Christine's blood and a third party's DNA), there is a greater than 50% likelihood that Morton would not have been convicted, and thus remanded the case for further proceedings concerning the bandana.

forensic DNA testingmurder convictionappealcriminal procedureexculpatory evidenceblood-stained bandanaunidentified fingerprintscircumstantial evidencetime of deathunknown intruder theory
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2006

Perez v. Munoz

The father appealed a Family Court order from Kings County, dated August 21, 2006, which denied his petition to modify a prior visitation order and for paternity testing. Specifically, he sought to have a social worker transport his children to his place of incarceration for visitation. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, stating that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel relief against an un-summoned social worker or agency. Additionally, the denial of paternity testing was upheld, as the proper procedure for challenging or establishing paternity, without a support order being sought, is through a separate Family Court Act article 5 proceeding.

CustodyVisitationPaternity TestingIncarcerationFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewJurisdictionFamily LawParental RightsJudicial Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jennings v. Minco Technology Labs, Inc.

Brenda L. Jennings sued her employer, Mineo Technology Labs, Inc., seeking to prevent the company from implementing a random drug-testing program for employees via urinalysis, arguing it violated common-law privacy rights. The company counterclaimed, asserting its plan was lawful. The trial court sided with the employer, declaring the plan lawful and enforceable, denying Jennings relief, and awarding attorney's fees to the company. On appeal, Jennings challenged both the lawfulness of the plan and the award of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, reasoning that 'at-will' employment allows employers to modify terms, and an employee's consent to testing, even if economically compelled, negates an unlawful invasion of privacy. The court also upheld the attorney's fees award, finding no abuse of discretion.

Employment LawDrug TestingPrivacy RightsAt-Will EmploymentDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefEmployer RightsEmployee RightsCommon LawContract Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stewart v. Lexicon Genetics, Inc.

Seven former vivarium technicians, including Teresa Stewart, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Lexicon Genetics, Inc. The employees had sued Lexicon for false imprisonment, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence following an investigation into showering protocol breaches at an animal research facility. Lexicon argued the claims were barred by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA). The court affirmed the summary judgment on claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence, finding they were either barred by the TWCA or not independent torts. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on the claims for false imprisonment and assault, remanding them to the trial court, as Lexicon failed to prove the managers involved were not corporate vice-principals, thus not satisfying its burden regarding the TWCA's intentional tort exception.

Summary Judgment AppealTexas Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyFalse ImprisonmentAssault and BatteryIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligence ClaimsIntentional Tort ExceptionVice-Principal LiabilityAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 2018-06-0433
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2019

Said, Medhat v. Communications Test Design, Inc.

Medhat Said alleged he suffered a cumulative trauma injury to his left shoulder while working for Communications Test Design, Inc. He sought medical benefits for unauthorized care and past temporary total disability benefits. The Court found Mr. Said likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that his left-shoulder condition arose primarily out of his employment. However, the Court denied the requested relief for payment of medical bills due to lack of authentication and supporting documentation. Temporary total disability benefits were also denied as evidence did not establish a causal connection between the injury and his inability to work, or the duration of disability.

Cumulative traumaShoulder injuryRepetitive motionMedical benefitsTemporary total disabilityCausationExpert medical opinionMedical bill authenticationWorkers' Compensation ClaimsExpedited hearing
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 885 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