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 Jason B.

The case involves a petition by the Commissioner of Social Services to adjudicate 9-month-old Jason B. and his two siblings as neglected children. The respondent mother made threats to harm her children, stating she would "take the children with her" and asking "What do I have to do to get help, something stupid like dangling one of my kids over the ferry?". The court found that these threats, coupled with the mother's history of mental illness, including diagnoses of "Schizophrenia with Borderline Features" and "Major Depression, Recurrent with Psychotic Features", established an imminent danger to the children. The court ruled that evidence of present or past harm is not required when a parent exhibits a capacity to carry out serious threats, thereby adjudicating the children neglected. They were continued on remand to the Commissioner of Social Services pending a dispositional hearing.

Child NeglectParental ThreatsMental IllnessImminent DangerFamily Court ActChild ProtectionSchizophreniaMajor DepressionPreponderance of EvidenceRisk of Harm
References
8
Case No. ADJ8844834
Regular
Nov 05, 2018

HECTOR GARCIA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

Applicant sustained industrial injury as a truck driver in 2013, resulting in multiple body part injuries and traumatic brain injury. The employer sought to overturn the WCJ's finding that their Utilization Review (UR) determination for applicant's continued inpatient care was untimely. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the UR was indeed untimely under Labor Code section 4610(i) for failing to meet the 72-hour timeframe for concurrent review in cases of imminent health threats. Consequently, applicant's continued inpatient care at CNS was authorized.

Utilization ReviewLabor Code Section 4610(i)Concurrent ReviewTimelinessIndependent Medical ReviewInpatient CareCenter for Neuro SkillsRequest for AuthorizationPrimary Treating PhysicianMedical Treatment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Shenker

The defendants, Shenker and Djavadi, were charged with criminal trespass and obstructing governmental administration after attempting to prevent the City of New York from bulldozing Esperanza Garden on February 15, 2000. They sought to present a justification defense, arguing their actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm – the destruction of the garden. The People moved to preclude this defense. Justice Robert M. Stole, presiding over the case, granted the People's motion. The court found that the justification defense under Penal Law § 35.05 (2) was not applicable, as the defendants failed to demonstrate an imminent public injury comparable to threats to life or community safety, and did not pursue reasonable legal alternatives during the available time.

Justification DefenseCriminal TrespassObstructing Governmental AdministrationCommunity GardensEnvironmental ProtestPenal Law 35.05Choice of EvilsEmergency MeasureImminent Public InjuryLegal Alternatives
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kimberly H.

This derivative neglect proceeding concerns Kimberly H., a newborn infant whose older siblings were removed from their mother's home due to findings of excessive corporal punishment shortly before Kimberly's birth. The Family Court initially found Kimberly not to be at imminent risk and conditionally released her to her mother. However, the Appellate Court reversed this decision, citing the recent neglect findings regarding Kimberly's siblings and their continued placement in foster care. The court determined that protection from an established threat of harm must take precedence over infant-parent bonding. Consequently, Kimberly was remanded to the custody of the Commissioner of the petitioner agency pending a full fact-finding hearing.

Derivative neglectCorporal punishmentImminent riskChild removalFoster careParental rightsFamily Court ActAppellate DivisionChild protectionParental therapy
References
6
Case No. ADJ7148195
Regular
Jan 03, 2020

KARIN SMITH vs. MARIN GENERAL HOSPITAL, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

This case concerns defendant's petition for reconsideration of an award for applicant's back surgery. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, affirmed the award, and corrected a clerical error in the case number. The WCAB found that while an initial surgery request was denied via Utilization Review (UR) and Independent Medical Review (IMR), the applicant's treating physician later submitted a new request supported by documented changes in material facts, including new neurological symptoms and an MRI showing critical stenosis and potential cauda equina syndrome. Because the second request indicated an imminent and serious threat to the applicant's health and was based on new medical evidence, the 12-month UR decision validity period did not apply.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code Section 4610(k)Documented Change in ConditionLumbar Spine SurgeryNurseCauda Equina Syndrome
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 1996

In re the Claim of Teeter

The claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. This stemmed from a 13-week suspension as a custodian after an arbitration found he directed racial comments and threats at a co-worker. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied benefits, relying on the arbitrator's findings. The court affirmed this decision, ruling that a suspension does not prevent benefit denial and that threats to a co-worker constitute disqualifying misconduct, which was supported by substantial evidence.

unemployment insurancemisconductracial commentsthreatssuspensionarbitrationbenefits denialcustodianappellate reviewsubstantial evidence
References
5
Case No. ADJ3891253 (SAC 0350473)
Regular
Jan 20, 2010

, MAURICIO CASTRO vs. , RODOLFO GUTIERREZ; ALLSTATE INSURANCE c/o SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal due to the assigned judge's reported threat to refer him to the District Attorney if he continued testifying. While the judge did not deny the threat, she stated it was to ensure attorneys observed the applicant's demeanor. The Board found this action created an appearance of bias and prejudiced the applicant's right to a fair hearing. Therefore, the case was transferred to a new judge to ensure substantial justice and an unbiased determination of the merits.

Petition for RemovalWCJ ThreatDistrict Attorney ReferralAppearance of BiasDue Process ViolationCode of Civil Procedure Section 641(f)Labor Code Section 5310Robbins v. Sharp HealthcareWCAB Rule 10452Disqualification
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1987

People v. Gaines

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment convicting the defendant of third-degree robbery. The defendant had entered a grocery store, threatened the cashier with what appeared to be a hand grenade, and claimed to have committed a homicide, stealing $15 before fleeing. He was later apprehended, and the inoperable grenade was recovered. The court ruled that the homicide threat merely enhanced the seriousness of the robbery threat, not constituting evidence of an uncharged crime. Additionally, the defendant's claim regarding courtroom closure during summation was not preserved for appellate review.

RobberyThird Degree RobberySecond Felony OffenderHand Grenade ThreatUncharged Crime EvidenceAppellate ReviewCourtroom ClosureCriminal Procedure LawAffirmance
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 1997

In re the Claim of Madden

Claimant was suspended from her employment as a typist due to disruptive, insubordinate, and threatening behavior, following prior warnings. An arbitration hearing confirmed the suspension was warranted based on threats made to co-workers and a history of disruptive conduct. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board adopted these findings, ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that threats and disruptive behavior in the workplace constitute misconduct and that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Claimant's remaining contentions were reviewed and found without merit.

unemployment insurancemisconductsuspensiondisruptive behaviorinsubordinationthreatsarbitrationappellate reviewsubstantial evidenceBoard decision
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04379 [32 NY3d 982]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2018

Matter of Natasha W. v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.

The Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Division order, dismissing the petition in a case where Natasha W. was placed on the Child Abuse Register for attempted shoplifting with her five-year-old child. The Court found a rational basis for the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the child was in imminent risk of impairment due to maltreatment and that Natasha W.'s actions were relevant to childcare employment. The dissent argued that there was no 'imminent danger' as required by statute and that the ALJ's prediction of future harm was speculative and lacked factual basis, criticizing the majority for creating a per se rule of neglect without specific proof of harm.

Child MaltreatmentShoplifting IncidentAdministrative ReviewRational Basis TestArbitrary and CapriciousImminent DangerChild Neglect DefinitionFamily Court ActSocial Services LawChild Abuse Register
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 221 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