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
Mar 20, 2001

Claim of Derr v. VIP Structures

The claimant, who had a work-related permanent total disability, was convicted of assault in March 1999 and subsequently incarcerated. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant was not entitled to benefits during his incarceration after the conviction of a crime. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing for continued benefits due to his total disability and resulting lack of earning capacity, regardless of his incarceration status. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the suspension of workers’ compensation benefits during incarceration after a criminal conviction is based on public policy, and this principle applies to both partial and total disabilities. The court concluded that suspending benefits in such circumstances does not conflict with the Workers’ Compensation Law's goals.

IncarcerationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsTotal DisabilityPublic PolicyAssault ConvictionBenefit SuspensionCriminal ConductAppellate ReviewDisability Benefits
References
5
Case No. WCB #G093 3039
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2023

Matter of Pickering v. Car Win Construction, Inc.

The claimant, a bus operator, sustained a compensable right knee injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found that the claimant's incarceration did not preclude causally related medical treatment. The employer/carrier sought reconsideration, arguing that the claimant lacked attachment to the labor market and that incarceration should not be considered a disability. The Board Panel granted reconsideration and modified the WCLJ's decision. They determined that indemnity payments should be suspended during the period of incarceration because the disability was due to incarceration rather than the work injury, but affirmed that causally related medical treatment remains compensable.

Workers' CompensationRight Knee InjuryIncarcerationIndemnity PaymentsMedical TreatmentCausally Related DisabilityLabor Market AttachmentReconsiderationBoard Panel DecisionSuspension of Benefits
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gregory B. v. Gregory F.

This consolidated appeal addresses whether incarcerated parents "permanently neglected" their children under Social Services Law § 384-b (7) (a), thus justifying the termination of parental rights. In Matter of Gregory B., the father, incarcerated since 1980, proposed long-term foster care for his children until his release, which was rejected. Similarly, in Matter of Willie John B. and Matter of Delores B., the father, incarcerated since 1979, also offered indefinite foster care after relatives were found unwilling or unable to provide care. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights in all cases, holding that while 1983 statutory reforms acknowledged special circumstances for incarcerated parents, they did not excuse them from planning for their child's future. The Court concluded that indefinite foster care is not a "viable plan" as it is inconsistent with the purpose of foster care and deprives children of the essential permanency required for proper growth and development.

Permanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationIncarcerated ParentSocial Services LawFoster CareAdoptionChild WelfareFamily LawCourt of AppealsJudicial Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2010

In re Alicia G.

The case concerns a petition for permanent neglect filed by Heartshare Human Services against Hanna Muhammad and Al G., the incarcerated parents of Alicia. The court examined whether the agency made diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship and if the parents adequately planned for Alicia's future, considering their incarceration. The petition against the mother, Hanna Muhammad, was dismissed as the agency failed to convincingly prove a lack of planning or cooperation. However, the petition against the father, Al G., was granted due to his failure to plan, with his disposition adjourned to a later date. The decision highlights the nuanced application of Social Services Law § 384-b for incarcerated parents.

Permanent NeglectIncarcerated ParentsSocial Services LawParental Rights TerminationDiligent EffortsParental PlanningFoster CareChild WelfareNew York Family LawChild Best Interests
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Delores B. Cardinal McCloskey Children's & Family Services v. Willie B.

The Court of Appeals reviewed a case concerning the termination of Willie Bethea's parental rights over his children, Willie B. and Delores B., due to permanent neglect. Bethea, incarcerated for murder, challenged the agency's diligent efforts and the Family Court's findings on his failure to plan for his children's future. The opinion addressed the interpretation of Social Services Law § 384-b regarding incarcerated parents' obligations. The court reversed the dismissal of the petition for Delores B., finding Bethea also permanently neglected her, and affirmed the termination of parental rights for Willie B., emphasizing that an incarcerated parent's rights are not paramount to the child's need for a permanent, normal family home.

Parental Rights TerminationPermanent NeglectIncarcerated ParentsChild AdoptionSocial Services LawDiligent EffortsChild WelfareBest Interests of the ChildFoster CareFamily Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1989

In re the Guardianship of Charles Frederick Eugene M.

This case concerns an appeal by a petitioner agency from a Family Court order dismissing a petition to terminate a mother's parental rights due to permanent neglect. The mother was incarcerated for sexually abusing her child, Charles M., and the agency maintained contact and assisted her in planning for the child's future during her incarceration. The Family Court had found that the mother's plan for the child's return after her release was not unrealistic, but the appellate court found that the agency made diligent efforts and the mother failed to plan realistically for over a year. The appellate court emphasized that incarceration does not excuse a parent's responsibility to plan for their child's future, and the mother had failed to address her underlying issues. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Family Court's decision, granted the petition for termination of parental rights, and remanded the matter for a dispositional hearing.

Parental RightsPermanent NeglectIncarcerated ParentDiligent EffortsPlanning for ChildSexual AbuseSodomyChild EndangermentFamily LawChild Welfare
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Dozier

The case People v. Dozier addresses whether incarceration under a subsequently vacated conviction can be used to toll the 10-year limitation for enhanced sentencing of second violent felony offenders under Penal Law § 70.04 (1) (b) (v). Defendant Robert Dozier's 1980 rape and sodomy conviction was vacated due to newly discovered evidence regarding the complainant's psychiatric history, leading to the indictment's dismissal. The People argued that "incarcerated for any reason" should be interpreted literally, applying even to invalid convictions unless deemed unconstitutional. The Court, affirming the Appellate Division, rejected this strict interpretation. It held that the tolling provision does not apply when incarceration results from a "without reason" or flawed conviction that is ultimately dismissed, compelling Dozier's resentencing as a first felony offender.

Second violent felony offenderEnhanced sentencingPenal LawTolling periodIncarcerationVacated convictionNewly discovered evidenceCPL 440.10Statutory interpretationCriminal law
References
20
Case No. ADJ7313891
Regular
Nov 02, 2016

WAHEED KESMATYAR vs. SAVEMART SUPERMARKETS/FOODMAXX

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that dismissed his case and denied him benefits. He argued he was denied due process due to his incarceration and lack of notice, and that proper procedure was not followed. The WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting the Workers' Compensation Judge's reasoning that the applicant's petition to set aside the dismissal was untimely and his claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The Appeals Board also noted that while incarceration was raised, other procedural and substantive arguments were not sufficiently demonstrated to warrant overturning the original decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionsSlip and FallDismissal OrderStatute of LimitationsDenied Due ProcessIncarceratedSet Aside DismissalGood CauseImproper Service
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R.T. v. Gross

Plaintiff, an incarcerated individual with a history of psychiatric issues, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that various correctional facility medical staff were deliberately indifferent to his serious psychiatric needs. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the Court granted. The Court found no verifiable evidence that any alleged lack of treatment caused Plaintiff substantial harm or a worse lifelong prognosis, noting his post-incarceration stabilization. Even assuming a serious medical need, the Court concluded that Defendants responded to acute episodes and did not act with deliberate indifference. Consequently, the Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.

Prisoner RightsEighth AmendmentDeliberate IndifferenceSerious Medical NeedsPsychiatric CareBipolar DisorderSummary JudgmentCorrectional FacilityMental Health Satellite UnitQualified Immunity
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rubackin v. Rubackin

This case addresses the appropriate standard of proof for finding a willful violation of a Family Court order of protection when incarceration is the imposed remedy. The court determined that such a finding, leading to jail time, constitutes a criminal contempt and thus requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a higher standard than previously applied in some appellate decisions. While the Family Court initially used a "clear and convincing evidence" standard, the appellate court reviewed the evidence and concluded it was sufficient to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Consequently, the original order's finding was modified to reflect the correct standard, and the order was affirmed as modified. An appeal regarding the expired period of incarceration was dismissed as academic.

Family LawContempt of CourtStandard of ProofCriminal ContemptCivil ContemptFamily Court ActDue ProcessIncarcerationAppellate ReviewOrder of Protection
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 116 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