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 Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of I-Conscious R. (George S.)

This case involves an appeal concerning a Family Court order that determined a respondent father abused and neglected his daughter and derivatively abused and neglected his son. The appellate court affirmed the fact-finding order, concluding that the petitioner presented a preponderance of evidence, including medical findings of genital herpes in the child, indicative of sexual abuse. The court upheld the neglect finding due to the father's failure to secure timely medical care for his daughter's severe symptoms. Additionally, the respondent's arguments regarding the suggestiveness of interviews, the testimony of his expert witness, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were all rejected by the court. An appeal against a separate order of protection was dismissed due to abandonment.

Child AbuseChild NeglectSexual AbuseGenital HerpesMedical EvidenceFamily Court ProceedingsSufficiency of EvidenceCredibility AssessmentIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. SAC 0343316
Regular
Aug 14, 2007

MELODY BRIDGES vs. SCHURMAN FINE PAPERS, CRUM & FORSTER

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of its prior order dismissing the applicant's petition, finding it was timely filed. Despite the applicant's petition being deemed timely, the Board, adopting the Judge's report, ultimately denied reconsideration of the original April 4, 2007 findings. This rescinds the dismissal order but affirms the denial of the initial request for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition to VacateOpinion and Order Dismissing ReconsiderationTimeliness of FilingPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ Findings and OrdersTemporary DisabilitySalary During DisabilityProof of ServiceElectronic Case History Log
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2009

In re Moona C.

An order of disposition from the Family Court, New York County, entered on October 26, 2009, was unanimously affirmed on appeal. This order brought up for review a fact-finding order from May 1, 2009, which determined that the respondent mother neglected her children. The appeal from the fact-finding order was dismissed as it was subsumed by the appeal from the dispositional order. The court also noted that the respondent's challenge to an interim visitation suspension was moot and not properly before the court. Furthermore, the Family Court's decision to permit one of the children, Robina C., to testify in camera was upheld, as it appropriately balanced the respondent's due process rights with the child's emotional well-being by allowing contemporaneous cross-examination by counsel. The affidavit of the social worker supporting the in camera testimony was found sufficient despite challenges to her expertise.

Family LawChild NeglectParental RightsIn Camera TestimonyDue ProcessVisitation RightsAppellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional OrderMootness
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2011

Errol S. v. Shelidah D.

The case involves an appeal concerning a Family Court order from New York County, dated September 1, 2011, which granted the father's petition to modify a joint custody arrangement and awarded him sole custody of his two children, with visitation rights to the respondent mother. The prior order had established joint custody with primary physical custody to the mother. The father sought modification due to concerns about the mother's inability to meet the children's basic hygiene and medical needs, as well as safety issues during their school commute. The Referee's decision to grant sole custody to the father was unanimously affirmed on appeal, citing a sound basis for credibility determinations against the mother, whose testimony was contradicted by multiple parties including the children's dentist. The court found that the father provided a stable home and addressed the children's needs, while the mother consistently failed to do so. The attorneys for the children also supported the affirmation, noting the children's satisfaction and well-being in the father's care.

Family LawChild CustodyJoint Custody ModificationSole Custody AwardParental FitnessChildren's WelfareMedical NeglectHygiene ConcernsCredibility DeterminationsAppellate Affirmation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Justin J.

Petitioner initiated neglect proceedings under Family Ct Act article 10 against respondent Arnold J. and his wife, alleging inadequate supervision, failure to administer prescribed medication, excessive corporal punishment, and drug abuse in the presence of their six children. The children were subsequently removed from the home. The Family Court of Clinton County found respondent and his wife committed acts constituting neglect and violated preliminary orders. Respondent appealed both findings. The appellate court noted that the appeal concerning the violation of preliminary orders had been previously resolved. Focusing on the neglect finding, the court found ample evidence to support the Family Court's determination, including respondent's admissions to inadequate supervision, using excessive corporal punishment, and smoking marihuana while caring for the children. Further testimony from a friend, a physician, and a caseworker corroborated the neglect allegations, detailing drug use, suspected medication sales, and respondent's erratic behavior endangering the children. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the order finding neglect and dismissed the appeal from the order finding respondent in violation of prior orders.

Child NeglectFamily CourtParental RightsSubstance AbuseCorporal PunishmentInadequate SupervisionAppellate ReviewEvidenceCredibilityDomestic Violence
References
7
Case No. ADJ11877438; ADJ11877439
Regular
Mar 28, 2025

WILLIAM ORLANDO ELIAS RAMIREZ vs. GRAND VIA AUTO REPAIR, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant William Orlando Elias Ramirez claimed various injuries while employed by Grand Via Auto Repair, insured by Zenith Insurance Company. The workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued a Joint Findings and Order, prompting defendant to seek reconsideration. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, treating it as a petition for removal. The Board denied the petition for removal, concluding that no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from the WCJ's interim procedural orders.

Interim Discovery OrdersPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationNon-Final OrderSubstantial Medical EvidenceQualified Medical EvaluatorPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorInternal Medicine PanelOrthopedic ConditionsCumulative Trauma Injury
References
20
Case No. ADJ6843599
Regular
Dec 03, 2012

MICHAEL FREITAS vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA

Here's a concise summary for a lawyer: The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the Findings and Order striking the Agreed Medical Evaluator's report was an interim procedural order, not a final decision on the merits. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant from the order. The defendant's contention that the striking of a supplemental report was improper was not persuasive, as the AME's own delay contributed to the issue. A subsequent order corrected a clerical error regarding the date of the Board's initial decision.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Rule 38Untimely ReportStriking AMEInterim Procedural OrderFinal OrderLabor Code Section 5310
References
11
Case No. ADJ7736993, ADJ8633868
Regular
Jul 29, 2016

HUGO IBARRA vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award. The applicant's argument focused on alleged errors in the WCJ's Opinion on Decision regarding advances, not the Findings and Award itself. The Board clarified that reconsideration is only available for final orders determining substantive rights or liabilities. Since the Findings and Award did not address advances or offsets, and no final order on that issue exists, the petition was denied. Any dispute regarding advances must first be litigated at the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardPermanent DisabilityDisability IndemnityAttorney's FeesOpinion on DecisionAdvancesOffsetsTrial Level
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2011

On Time Staffing, LLC v. National Union Fire Insurance

On December 23, 2010, On Time Staffing, LLC and On Time Industrial Staffing, Inc. petitioned the court to vacate an interim arbitration award rendered against them in an arbitration with National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA. The arbitration concerned retrospectively rated workers' compensation insurance provided by National Union to On Time, governed by a Payment Agreement with a broad arbitration clause. The arbitration panel issued an order requiring On Time to post pre-hearing security of $312,188, which On Time challenged, alleging the arbitrators exceeded their powers under FAA § 10(a)(4) and committed misconduct under FAA § 10(a)(3) by not conducting a full evidentiary hearing. The District Court denied the petition, affirming the arbitration panel's inherent authority to order interim relief to preserve the arbitration's integrity and finding that On Time received a fundamentally fair hearing. The court concluded that the panel's decision was within its powers and did not constitute misconduct.

Arbitration LawFederal Arbitration ActInterim ReliefPre-hearing SecurityVacating Arbitration AwardArbitrator AuthorityArbitrator MisconductWorkers' Compensation InsuranceContract InterpretationDue Process
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 30,399 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