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 Glenn II.

This is an appeal by Respondent Lisa II. from an order of the Family Court of Tioga County. The Family Court granted a petitioner's application to adjudicate Lisa II.'s three children (Tiffany, Glenn, and Jeffrey) as neglected. The neglect allegations stemmed from the parents' failure to prevent the twin boys from accessing cigarettes, lighters, and matches, and respondent's failure to follow through with recommended preventative services. Evidence showed the boys were repeatedly accessing fire-inducing materials, leading to dangerous incidents, and the respondent subsequently refused to lock up lighters. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's finding, concluding that the evidence sufficiently supported the neglect finding.

Child NeglectFamily Court Act Article 10Parental DutyChild SafetyFire ExperimentationPreventative ServicesAppellate ReviewAffirmation of OrderTioga CountyParental Responsibility
References
2
Case No. 533487
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Glenn Hedges

The claimant, Glenn Hedges, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that rescinded his reduced earnings award for a specific period. Hedges, a fire safety director, sustained work-related injuries in 2014. After a period of medical evaluations, including reports from his treating neurologist, Ranga Krishna, and independent medical exams, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge classified him with a permanent partial disability. However, the WCLJ also denied continuing payments due to him working at full wages at one point. The Board modified the WCLJ's decision, awarding benefits for a shorter period and finding insufficient medical evidence to support an award for the period between August 22, 2018, and December 4, 2019, due to the claimant's failure to submit ongoing medical progress reports every 90 days. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating the requirement for regular medical evidence of continuing disability prior to official permanency classification.

Workers' CompensationReduced EarningsPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical EvidenceProgress ReportsMaximum Medical ImprovementIndependent Medical ExamDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewSedentary Work
References
8
Case No. ADJ1261632 (SAC 0317810)
Regular
Jan 26, 2009

Glenn Nissen vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO WORK COMP OFF.

The WCAB denied applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision that the applicant sustained 42% permanent disability based on the QME's report.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGlenn NissenCounty of Sacramentopermanent disabilityapportionmentQualified Medical EvaluatorDr. RenbaumDr. McAuleyDr. Salinassedentary work
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. McDowell

The defendant, Glenn R. McDowell, facing charges including second-degree murder, moved to suppress the testimony of an eyewitness, Johnnie T. Williams, who had been hypnotized. The defense argued that the hypnosis violated McDowell's due process rights by potentially distorting the witness's memory and hindering cross-examination. Justice William J. Burke reviewed the hypnotic session and expert testimony, assessing whether established safeguards for such procedures were met. The court found substantial compliance with these safeguards and determined that the hypnosis did not irreversibly alter the witness's memory or constitute an improper identification procedure. Consequently, the motion to suppress the witness's statements and potential trial testimony was denied, with the court concluding that hypnosis generally impacts credibility rather than admissibility.

Hypnosis AdmissibilityWitness MemoryDue ProcessCriminal Procedure LawMotion to SuppressCross-Examination RightsEyewitness TestimonySuggestibilityLegal SafeguardsNew York Penal Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Moore

The case concerns defendant Kevin Glenn Moore's motions to suppress evidence obtained from searches of a car and a motel room, and an oral statement, citing violations of the Fourth Amendment and Miranda rights. District Judge Brieant denied all suppression motions. The court found the car searches lawful due to the victim's consent and Moore's lack of a legitimate expectation of privacy. The motel room search was validated by a federal warrant and the victim's inhabitant victim's consent, with the court also noting the applicability of the 'good faith exception'. Moore's statement, made voluntarily without interrogation after asserting his Miranda rights, was deemed admissible.

Suppression MotionFourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureProbable CauseWarrantless SearchConsent to SearchVictim ConsentMotel Room SearchVehicle SearchMiranda Rights
References
15
Case No. ADJ6754063
Regular
Jun 06, 2013

GLENN WILLIAMS vs. WARNER BROTHERS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

This case involves Glenn Williams, who claimed industrial injuries to his back, neck, shoulders, and elbows while employed by Warner Brothers Entertainment, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ), who found the applicant's testimony credible. The WCJ's decision was supported by the Agreed Medical Examiner, Dr. Angerman, who concluded the applicant sustained industrial injuries due to arduous employment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeAgreed Medical ExaminerSub rosa filmContinuous traumaIndustrial injuryCredibility findingOrthopedic complaintsSign writer
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Shalala

Plaintiff Glenn Jones challenged the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. Jones, who sustained a back injury in 1988, had his application for benefits denied initially and on reconsideration, a decision upheld by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the Appeals Council. The District Court reviewed the ALJ's decision, focusing on the application of the treating physician rule and the determination of Jones's residual functional capacity for sedentary work. The court found that the ALJ properly considered contradictory medical evidence from consulting physicians and that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Jones could perform sedentary work. Consequently, the court affirmed the Secretary's determination, denying Jones's motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting the defendant's cross-motion.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkBack InjuryMedical EvidenceALJ DecisionAffirmed DecisionFederal Court Action
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06585 [165 AD3d 725]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Simmons v. City of New York

Glenn Simmons, a plumber, was injured while moving a 600-pound air compressor on a pallet jack at a construction site at the North Shore Marine Transfer Station in Queens. The pallet jack allegedly struck concrete debris, causing the compressor to roll off and injure Simmons' ankle. Simmons commenced an action against the City of New York, the Department of Sanitation, and Prismatic Development Corp., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied Simmons' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of Simmons' summary judgment motion on Labor Law § 240(1) and affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 240(1) claims against all defendants, and Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against the City defendants. However, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by denying summary judgment to Prismatic Development Corp. on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding triable issues of fact. It also denied summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-2.2 (d), concluding that the defendants failed to demonstrate its inapplicability or lack of violation, or that a violation was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentElevation DifferentialDangerous ConditionIndustrial Code ViolationPallet Jack AccidentWorkers' SafetyWork Site Hazard
References
34
Case No. ADJ3705124 (VNO 0496493)
Regular
Jul 09, 2015

Dusty Glenn Garman vs. California Department of Corrections, California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility; Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund

The Appeals Board reversed a WCJ's decision, finding that applicant Dusty Glenn Garman had preexisting permanent disability or impairment prior to his industrial injury. This finding was based on substantial medical evidence, including deposition testimony from Dr. Markovitz and cardiac catheterization lab results, indicating significant coronary artery stenosis. Consequently, the Board determined that the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIF) is liable for benefits as the applicant met the statutory thresholds for such liability.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundPreexisting permanent disabilityRetroactive prophylactic work restrictionCoronary artery diseaseApportionmentHeart troubleLabor Code § 4751Labor Code § 3212.2Medical evidenceStenosis
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giant Group, Ltd. v. Sands

This case concerns a securities fraud action brought by Giant Group, Ltd. against accounting firms Arthur Anderson LLP, Friedman Alpren & Green LLP, and individual Glenn Sands, along with investment bank L.H. Friend. Giant alleged that the defendants made false and misleading representations and failed to disclose material information regarding fraudulent schemes by Sands at Periscope Sportswear, Inc., which Giant acquired for $85 million. The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting that Giant's federal securities fraud claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations under Rule 10b-5. The court found that Giant had received sufficient "storm warnings" and inquiry notice regarding Sands' misconduct, including prebilling and improper expense charges, more than a year before filing its complaint. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the federal securities claim as time-barred and declining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Securities FraudStatute of LimitationsInquiry NoticeMotion to DismissRule 10b-5Auditor IndependencePleading FraudPrivate Securities Litigation Reform ActGAAP ViolationsPre-billing
References
59
Showing 1-10 of 48 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