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 06, 1977

In re Jacqueline E.

This proceeding, initiated by the Commissioner of Social Services, sought a 12-month extension of placement for Jacqueline E., aimed at a trial discharge to her natural mother, Martha Q. The Law Guardian concurrently requested an extension and termination of parental rights for adoption by the foster parents, John and Hazel F. The court acknowledged Jacqueline's desire to remain with her foster parents, as expressed in a psychiatric evaluation and in camera. However, citing the natural mother's rehabilitation and statutory preference for reuniting families, the court extended Jacqueline's placement with the Department of Social Services through December 6, 1978. This extension includes a supervised trial discharge to the natural mother, while denying the Law Guardian's request to terminate parental rights.

Child PlacementFamily ReunificationParental RightsFoster CareTrial DischargeBest Interest of the ChildLaw GuardianSocial Services LawFamily Court ActParental Fitness
References
4
Case No. ADJ9052447
Regular
Oct 13, 2018

JACQUELINE FINDLER vs. WALMART, AVIZENT, YORK INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration in *Findler v. Walmart*. The WCAB adopted the findings of the WCJ, who found that the lien claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence of the reasonable value of services rendered. This was because the applicable fee schedule did not control for services provided before its effective date. Therefore, the lien claimant was required to present evidence of reasonable value, which they did not adequately do.

Jacqueline FindlerWalmartAvizentYork InsuranceADJ9052447Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJOpinion and Order DenyingAdministrative Director Rule 9983
References
4
Case No. 2005 NY Slip Op 25220
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2005

Matter of Jacqueline B. v. Peter K.

This Family Court case addresses the admissibility of a child's out-of-court statements in a custody modification proceeding. Petitioner Jacqueline B. sought to modify an existing joint custody order with respondent Peter K. The central question was whether the child's hearsay statements, relating to issues like communication problems and incompatible parenting styles—but not allegations of abuse or neglect—could be admitted into evidence. Presiding Justice Paula J. Hepner reviewed established case law, including _Ponzini v Ponzini_, and concluded that without specific allegations of abuse or neglect, hearsay statements from a child are inadmissible in custody proceedings under Article 6 of the Family Court Act. The court distinguished this scenario from child protective proceedings where such exceptions might apply and ruled that the child's statements were not admissible.

Custody ModificationHearsay AdmissibilityChild Witness StatementsFamily Court ProceedingsEvidentiary RulesParental RightsAbuse and Neglect AllegationsDue ProcessJoint CustodyLaw Guardian Role
References
22
Case No. ADJ976241 (VNO 0301388)
Regular
Feb 14, 2013

JACQUELINE GREEN vs. GENERAL MOTORS, ARROWOOD INDEMNITY INSURANCE CO.

Applicant Jacqueline Green and lienholder Theodore Green filed a document over a year late, seeking to overturn an approved Compromise and Release (C&R). The C&R clearly stipulated the dismissal of Theodore Green's liens with prejudice, a term signed by both Jacqueline and Theodore. As the petition for reconsideration was untimely filed, exceeding the 20-day limit, the Board lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the Board dismissed their motion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseLien ClaimantDismissal with PrejudiceUntimely PetitionLabor Code section 5903Non-medical BenefitsPermanent Disability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2009

Alcalde v. Riley

The plaintiff firefighter sued Jacqueline Riley for personal injuries sustained while responding to a fire at Riley's home in Queens. The fire, caused by reckless use of a torch by subcontractors, prompted the plaintiff to allege violations of General Municipal Law § 205-a and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted Riley's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court found Riley failed to demonstrate a lack of connection between alleged statutory violations and the plaintiff's injuries, and that a triable issue of fact existed regarding common-law negligence due to a blocked staircase on the premises.

Personal InjuryFirefighter InjuryGeneral Municipal LawCommon-Law NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealAppellate Court DecisionPremises LiabilityHomeowner ResponsibilityStatutory ViolationsSubcontractor Negligence
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1982

Crespi v. Ihrig

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied defendant Air Canada's motion for summary judgment in a case brought by plaintiff Jacqueline Crespi. Crespi sought damages for serious personal injuries sustained from an assault by a co-employee, Ihrig, at Air Canada's offices. The complaint alleged Air Canada's complicity, but no supporting evidence was found. Special Term's basis for denial, regarding bizarre symptoms, was deemed erroneous. The appellate court reversed, clarifying that employer liability under Workers' Compensation Law requires proof of an intentional act by the employer specifically directed at causing harm, not merely that injury was 'substantially certain.' Consequently, Air Canada's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the complaint against it.

Assault by Co-employeeEmployer LiabilityWorkers’ Compensation LawSummary JudgmentIntentional ActPersonal InjuryAppellate CourtWorkplace IncidentDismissal of ComplaintNew York Supreme Court
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2001

Hahne v. State

Claimant Jacqueline Hahne, a data entry clerk for the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in Essex County, alleged assault by inmate Jose Ortiz during a work release program at DEC headquarters. Ortiz, performing janitorial duties, reportedly touched Hahne's face and attempted to kiss her. Hahne and her husband filed a claim against the State, asserting vicarious liability for Ortiz's actions. The Court of Claims dismissed the claim, determining that workers' compensation was Hahne's exclusive remedy. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, as there was no evidence the assault was directed by the employer, nor could the State be held liable under respondeat superior since Ortiz's act was solely for personal motives and unrelated to his duties. Furthermore, no evidence supported a claim of negligent supervision due to a lack of prior knowledge of Ortiz's propensity for such conduct.

Workers' CompensationVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorNegligent SupervisionIntentional TortAssaultEmployee InjuryState LiabilityInmate Work ReleaseExclusive Remedy
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kearney v. County of Rockland

Plaintiff Frances E. Kearney brought action against the County of Rockland and Jacqueline Stormes, alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and NYSHRL, alongside claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for equal protection and First Amendment retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. These claims arose from denied promotions and a departmental reassignment. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court determined Kearney failed to establish a prima facie case for her discrimination and retaliation claims due to insufficient evidence and lack of causal connection. All her claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentADEANYSHRLEqual Protection ClauseFirst Amendment RightsIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressAdverse Employment Action
References
26
Case No. ADJ3099189 (MON 0342197) ADJ8906769
Regular
Oct 28, 2018

JACQUELINE GUINN vs. DYNAMIC RESEARCH, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Jacqueline Guinn's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB denied her petition, affirming the administrative law judge's findings that the employer timely communicated utilization review (UR) determinations and that the Independent Medical Review (IMR) appeals were accurate. Guinn argued various procedural errors, including untimely UR communications, lack of evidence for sleep study requests, and entitlement to penalties, but the WCAB found her arguments unsubstantiated by the record. The WCAB also ruled that attorney fees were not warranted under Labor Code section 4651.3 as the employer's petition to terminate temporary disability was withdrawn, not denied.

Utilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeMedical NecessityTimelinessRequest for AuthorizationPenaltiesLabor Code Section 5814
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harley v. Druzba

This action involves Amanda Harley, daughter of Gerald and Jacqueline Harley, suing social worker Joseph V. Druzba, her mother, and maternal grandmother. The dispute arises from events stemming from her parents' contentious divorce, where Druzba was retained for family counseling regarding visitation issues that subsequently deteriorated. Amanda alleged Druzba's negligence resulted in loss of sibling visitation, and claimed torts of custodial interference, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional harm. The court addressed Druzba's motion to dismiss the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action. The first cause of action, concerning loss of sibling visitation, was not dismissed, acknowledging legislative recognition of such rights, while the remaining four causes of action were dismissed for various legal deficiencies, including lack of standing, no contractual relationship, and New York's stance on common-law invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress in matrimonial contexts.

Sibling Visitation RightsCustodial InterferenceBreach of ContractInvasion of PrivacyIntentional Infliction of Emotional HarmMotion to DismissSocial Worker NegligenceFamily CounselingDivorce LitigationCPLR 3211(a)(7)
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 41 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