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. ADJ4716833 (VNO 0556240)
Regular
Oct 20, 2011

JASON DRION vs. T & G ROOFING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Jason Drion's petition for reconsideration. The dismissal was primarily based on the petition being untimely. Even if considered on its merits, the WCAB would have denied reconsideration according to the administrative law judge's report. Therefore, the petition was officially dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportDismissedUntimelyMeritsAdministrative Law JudgeJason DrionT&G RoofingState Compensation Insurance Fund
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MATTER OF JASON B. v. Novello

This appeal addresses whether res judicata bars the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (OMRDD) from reevaluating an applicant's eligibility for developmental disability benefits. Petitioner Jason B. was initially deemed eligible in 2003, but OMRDD later terminated his services in 2006 following a reevaluation prompted by his service provider. After a fair hearing affirmed the termination, Jason B. initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, leading the Appellate Division to apply res judicata to the 2003 determination and annul the termination. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, clarifying that the 2003 eligibility finding was not a quasi-judicial determination and thus not subject to res judicata. The Court concluded that OMRDD's 2006 termination of benefits was supported by substantial evidence.

Res JudicataAdministrative LawDevelopmental DisabilityMedicaid EligibilityOMRDD ServicesHome and Community Based Services WaiverMental Hygiene LawCPLR Article 78 ProceedingSubstantial EvidenceAgency Review
References
11
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. 534777
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Jason Kallman

Jason Kallman, a sanitation worker, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by concealing prior compensable injuries, leading to disqualification from future indemnity benefits and forfeiture of a schedule loss of use (SLU) award. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Kallman made false statements or omissions regarding prior injuries to his right and left feet. However, the court reversed the mandatory penalty of forfeiture for the 16.25% SLU award, finding the compensation directly attributable to the misrepresentation had already been accounted for. The court also reversed the discretionary penalty of permanent disqualification from future wage replacement benefits, ruling that the Board's rationale was unsupported by the record.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseFraudMisrepresentationIndemnity BenefitsPrior InjuriesFalse StatementMaterial FactAppellate ReviewCredibility Issue
References
12
Case No. CV-22-1926
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Jason Golisano

Claimant Jason R. Golisano filed for workers' compensation benefits in August 2021 alleging work-related injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim for a left wrist injury in September 2021. The employer and its carrier filed an application for review with the Workers' Compensation Board on November 3, 2021, which was denied as untimely because it was filed beyond the 30-day limit. The carrier appealed, contending the Board should have exercised its discretion to accept the late application, citing a short delay and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the Board did not abuse its broad discretion in denying the untimely application for review.

Workers' CompensationUntimely ApplicationBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewWCLJ Decision30-Day LimitJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawProcedural IssueCOVID-19 Impact
References
4
Case No. CA 15-00506
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2016

PEARSON, JASON v. WALLACE, JEREMY

Plaintiff Jason Pearson, an employee, sustained injuries at a construction site due to a falling incident involving a ladder and a concrete truck chute. He moved for partial summary judgment on liability against the general contractor, LeCesse Construction Services, LLC, and the property owner, Geneva General Hospital, under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied his motion, and Pearson appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, ruling that while Pearson initially met his burden, the defendants and third-party defendants successfully raised triable issues of fact regarding the accident's proximate cause and the plaintiff's potential sole proximate cause through disregard of safety directives.

Construction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentLadder AccidentProximate CauseContributory NegligenceWorkplace SafetyGeneral Contractor LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilitySubcontractor Liability
References
8
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04102
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2021

Matter of Jason Alexander B. (Brenda S.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Family Court's order finding respondent-appellant Antonio G. abused and neglected Jason and Damira, and derivatively abused and neglected Jayrell and Phillip. The court found that Damira's detailed out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated by expert testimony of a licensed clinical social worker, who stated the child suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder related to sexual abuse. Respondent's argument that he was not legally responsible for the two eldest children was unpreserved and unavailing, given his frequent presence in the home and relationship to the children. His actions demonstrated impaired parental judgment, placing the children at substantial risk of harm.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily Court ActCorroboration of TestimonyExpert TestimonyPosttraumatic Stress DisorderParental JudgmentLegal ResponsibilityAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. 528032
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of IRA Jason Lucks, as Executor of the Estate of Julius Lucks, Deceased, Claimant

Julius Lucks suffered a work-related myocardial infarction in 1980, with liability initially against Continental Casualty Company (CNA) before being transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. After Julius's death in June 2013, his executor, Ira Jason Lucks, filed a claim for consequential death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that CNA was the proper carrier for the death benefit claim, citing the failure to raise the applicability of Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a prior to the January 1, 2014 cutoff date. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that for relief from the Special Fund under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a (1-a), both the accrual of the death benefit claim and the application for transfer of liability must occur before the January 1, 2014 deadline.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesTransfer of LiabilityAccrual DateCutoff DateCarrier LiabilitySection 25-aMyocardial InfarctionPermanent Partial Disability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Adoption of Jason K.

Wallace C. sought to adopt his 15-year-old great-nephew, Jason K., a South Korean citizen residing in the US on an F-1 student visa. Jason's biological parents consented to the adoption. The court expressed significant concerns regarding the adoption's compatibility with federal immigration law, specifically the implications of Jason's nonimmigrant student status. Petitioner's counsel failed to provide confirmation from USCIS that the adoption could proceed without violating immigration statutes. Consequently, the court dismissed the adoption petition without prejudice, stating it would reconsider the issue upon submission of the requested USCIS confirmation.

AdoptionImmigration LawF-1 VisaStudent VisaNonimmigrant AlienParental Rights TerminationDomestic Relations LawFamily CourtGuardianshipSpecial Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJ)
References
49
Case No. CA 15-01752
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2016

FAWCETT, JASON v. STEARNS, FRANKLYN COLE

Plaintiffs Jason and Cynthia Fawcett appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, which granted summary judgment to defendant Franklyn Cole Stearns, dismissing their Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims. The plaintiffs sought damages for injuries sustained by Jason Fawcett when he fell from a roof while renovating defendant's cottage. The core issue was the applicability of the homeowner exemption from liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, found that the defendant met the burden of establishing the exemption, as the renovation work served both residential and commercial purposes, thereby shielding him from strict liability. The court affirmed the lower court's order.

Homeowner ExemptionLabor LawPremises LiabilityStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentRenovation WorkSecond Home
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 61 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