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
Nov 26, 2025

Matter of Jack V. (Jack U.)

This case concerns the termination of a father's (Jack U.) parental rights due to permanent neglect of his twin sons (Jack V. and another child). The children were removed shortly after birth in 2016 and remained in foster care for nearly their entire lives. The Broome County Department of Social Services initiated proceedings, alleging the incarcerated father failed to plan for his children's future despite the agency's diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship. Family Court (Levine, J.) granted the petition, terminating parental rights and freeing the children for adoption. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, concluding that the agency met its burden of proof regarding diligent efforts and the father's failure to offer a feasible plan.

Parental rightsChild neglectIncarcerationFoster care placementTermination of parental rightsFamily lawAppellate reviewDiligent effortsService planBest interests of the child
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jack T.

This case involves an appeal concerning a mentally incompetent juvenile, Jack T., who faced multiple delinquency petitions. After being found incompetent and dangerous, Family Court Judges remanded him to the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling that Family Court could not commit a mentally retarded juvenile under CPL article 730 and required adherence to Mental Hygiene Law procedures. Following remand, a new hearing assessed Jack T.'s competency and need for involuntary care. Medical examiners concluded Jack T. remained incompetent to stand trial but was no longer a danger to himself or the community and did not require involuntary commitment. Judge Gibbell, presiding, highlighted a legislative oversight, concluding that without certification under the Mental Hygiene Law or the ability to use CPL 730.50, the Family Court's hands are tied, rendering it unable to act in such cases, and strongly urged legislative reform.

Juvenile DelinquencyMental IncompetenceFamily CourtHabeas CorpusCPL Article 730Mental Hygiene LawDue ProcessInvoluntary CommitmentLegislative ReformJudicial Discretion
References
9
Case No. STK 100401, STK 102758, STK 151721
Regular
May 01, 2007

JACK LITTLE vs. TRI-VALLEY GROWERS, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Jack Little sustained admitted industrial injuries to his knees and back, resulting in permanent disability and a need for ongoing medical treatment, including for his hypertension. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the finding that applicant's erectile dysfunction is not a compensable consequence of the industrial injuries, as both medical evaluators concluded it was not caused by the work injuries. However, a dissenting commissioner argued for reconsideration to further develop the record regarding whether the industrially-caused hypertension and its medications contribute to the erectile dysfunction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTri-Valley GrowersNational Union Fire Insurance CompanyJack Littleindustrial injurieskneesbackmaintenance mechanicpermanent disabilitymedical treatment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Billy Jack for Her, Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union

This case involves an action initially brought in state court by Billy Jack for Her, Inc., an apparel jobber, against the New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear and Allied Workers’ Union. Billy Jack alleged tortious interference with contractual relations due to the Union's picketing aimed at securing a 'Hazantown agreement.' The Union removed the case to federal court. The court denied Billy Jack's motion to remand, ruling that the state law claim was preempted by federal labor law, thus establishing federal question jurisdiction. The Union's motion to modify a temporary restraining order was denied as moot because the order had already expired.

Labor disputeFederal preemptionTortious interference with contractPicketingHazantown agreementNational Labor Relations ActNLRA Section 8(b)(4)(B)NLRA Section 8(b)(7)(A)Removal jurisdictionFederal question jurisdiction
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amo v. Little Rapids Corp.

Plaintiff, Amo, was injured after falling 16 inches from a boulder while jackhammering during a construction excavation project. He sued Little Rapids Corporation (LRC), the property owner, and Laframboise Group, Ltd., the general contractor, under Labor Law § 240 (1). After a second jury trial, it was determined that the height differential was 15 inches and plaintiff fell a total of 16 inches. The Supreme Court ruled this constituted an elevation-related risk under the Labor Law. The Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the specific circumstances of the fall from an elevated, wet work surface while jackhammering constituted a "special hazard" under Labor Law § 240 (1), especially given the uncontroverted absence of safety devices.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-Related RiskFall From HeightWorkplace SafetyScaffolding LawIndemnification ClaimsJury FindingsAppellate AffirmationAbsence of Safety Devices
References
31
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05983
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2018

Matter of Taylor v. Little Angels Head Start

Claimant, Laverne Taylor, sought workers' compensation benefits for a bilateral knee condition, alleging it was work-related due to changes in her job duties at Little Angels Head Start. She filed her claim over a year after leaving employment, and the employer controverted it due to lack of timely notice under Workers' Compensation Law § 18. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed the decision, denying the claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer lacked actual knowledge of a work-related injury and was prejudiced by the delay, as Taylor did not inform them of the work-related nature of her condition until much later.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsTimely NoticeWorkers' Compensation Law § 18Causally-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionEmployer KnowledgePrejudiceBilateral Knee ConditionMedical Leave
References
3
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 04842 [129 AD3d 828]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2015

Vasquez-Roldan v. Two Little Red Hens, Ltd.

Doroteo Vasquez-Roldan, the plaintiff, sustained personal injuries after falling from a scaffold lacking safety rails while removing pipes during a renovation. He initiated a consolidated action against BSH, LLC, the premises owner, and Two Little Red Hens, Ltd., the lessee, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation due to the inadequate safety devices, and the defendants failed to present a triable issue of fact regarding sole proximate cause. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability was granted.

Scaffold accidentPersonal injuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary judgmentAppellate reversalWorker safetyElevated work siteProximate causeNondelegable dutyPremises liability
References
12
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01170 [225 AD3d 587]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2024

Jia Zhong Liu v. Yung

The plaintiff, Jia Zhong Liu, allegedly sustained personal injuries after falling from an unsecured ladder while working at the home of defendants Jack Chiang Min Yung and Tzufen Chiang Chen. Plaintiff claimed Jack Chiang Min Yung directed him to climb the ladder to address a leak. Plaintiff subsequently filed an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss these claims against Jack Chiang Min Yung. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding the defendants failed to establish prima facie that the plaintiff's activity was outside the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1) or that Jack Chiang Min Yung did not direct or control the work, thereby denying summary judgment.

Personal InjuryLadder FallConstruction AccidentLabor LawWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHomeowner ExemptionNegligenceDuty to Supervise
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schwarz v. Valente

The plaintiff, a worker hired to re-shingle the defendant Jack Valente's roof, suffered personal injuries after falling from a ladder. The jury initially found that while Valente violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to provide safety equipment, this violation was not a substantial factor in the plaintiff's injuries. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, set aside this portion of the verdict and granted judgment as a matter of law on liability for the plaintiff. Jack Valente appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order and interlocutory judgment, ruling that no rational person could conclude the Labor Law § 240 (1) violation was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentLadder FallProximate CauseJury VerdictJudgment as a Matter of LawAppellate ReviewLabor LawNondelegable Duty
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Little Flower for Rehabilitation & Nursing

The plaintiff, Stephanie Thomas, commenced an action against Little Flower for Rehabilitation & Nursing, 1199 SEIU National Benefit Fund, and 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East (Local 1199). She alleged unlawful retaliation and breach of contract by Little Flower, breach of duty of fair representation by Local 1199, and COBRA violations by all three defendants. The COBRA claim against Local 1199 was later dismissed. Local 1199 moved to dismiss the remaining claims against it. The court found that Thomas plausibly alleged a meritorious grievance and that Local 1199 acted arbitrarily by failing to process her grievance or investigate it, thereby breaching its duty of fair representation. Consequently, Local 1199's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied.

Employment TerminationUnlawful RetaliationBreach of ContractDuty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissLabor LawUnion GrievanceCollective Bargaining AgreementERISACOBRA Claim
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 169 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