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 Kim HH.

Kim HH., born in 1983, was living with her mother and stepfather in September 1995 when a complaint was filed with the State Central Registry for Child Abuse and Maltreatment due to statements she made about her home life and treatment. A neglect proceeding was commenced, and Family Court found that respondents (mother and stepfather) subjected Kim to excessive corporal punishment and verbal abuse, constituting neglect. Kim was placed in petitioner's custody. Respondents appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding sufficient evidence of parental misconduct and harm to the child, including physical injury, fear, and enhanced self-esteem after removal from the household. The court deferred to Family Court's credibility findings regarding Kim's testimony of abuse.

NeglectChild AbuseCorporal PunishmentParental MisconductChild WelfareFamily Court ActCredibilityAppellate ReviewChild CustodyPhysical Abuse
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kim K.

The court addressed the Law Guardian's motion to prevent the 13-year-old child, Kim K., from testifying in a fact-finding hearing, citing her fragile emotional state. The respondent grandmother and the Department of Social Services presented conflicting positions regarding the necessity of Kim's testimony for corroborating out-of-court statements. Acknowledging its dual mandate to protect the child and determine neglect, the court denied the outright prevention of testimony. Instead, it ordered an in camera interview with Kim, detailing a procedure for counsel to submit questions and for the court to conduct the session, deciding on the sworn status of her testimony. The court further ruled that such in camera testimony, conducted under its prescribed procedure, could independently serve as sufficient evidence to support a finding of neglect.

Child protective proceedingChild witnessIn camera testimonyEmotional fragilityFact-finding hearingCorroboration of statementsFamily Court ActLaw GuardianDue processHearsay evidence
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 1984

In re Kim F.

The Family Court, New York County, issued a final order of disposition adjudicating 15-year-old Kim F. a juvenile delinquent for acts constituting arson in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree. This adjudication followed a guilty plea entered in Rockland County Family Court concerning an incident where Kim F. intentionally started a fire at a mental health center. The appellate court reversed this order, vacated the guilty plea, and remanded the case to the Rockland County Family Court for further proceedings. The reversal was based on several procedural errors, including the failure to notify Kim F.'s parents, inadequate advisement of her rights to remain silent and counsel, and the lack of an admission of intentional damage, which is a required element of the crimes charged. The court emphasized the necessity for both the minor and a parent to understand and waive such fundamental rights before a guilty plea can be accepted.

Juvenile DelinquencyArson Second DegreeCriminal Mischief Fourth DegreeGuilty PleaParental NotificationRight to CounselRight to Remain SilentDue ProcessVacated PleaRemand
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campuzano v. Chea Hung Kim

In October 1987, New York City police officer Julio Campuzano, temporarily assigned to the FBI and sworn as a Special Deputy U.S. Marshal, was involved in an automobile accident in Bayonne, New Jersey, while on duty. Instead of seeking federal compensation, he received medical expense remuneration from New York City’s Worker’s Compensation Insurance Fund. Campuzano subsequently sued Mr. Kim in New York State court, who in turn filed a third-party suit for indemnification and contribution against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, after the case was removed to federal court. The United States moved to dismiss, arguing New Jersey law, which bars such claims against employers, should apply. However, the court applied New Jersey’s conflict of laws rules, which led to the application of New York law, thus denying the motion to dismiss.

Federal Tort Claims ActWorkers' CompensationChoice of LawGovernmental Interest TestThird-Party ClaimsIndemnificationContributionAutomobile AccidentFederal Employee LiabilityNew York Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 1999

Yong Ju Kim v. Herbert Construction Co.

Plaintiff Yong Ju Kim, an electrician, sustained injuries from an electrical shock while performing routine maintenance at the Sherry Netherland Hotel. He commenced an action against Herbert Construction Company, Inc., and Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court's initial rulings were subsequently modified upon reargument. On appeal, the court dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, affirmed the dismissal of all claims against Herbert Construction, and found that triable issues of fact existed for the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Coyne Electrical. Additionally, the anti-subrogation rule was applied to Coyne's third-party action against Sherry-Netherland, limiting recovery to the extent of the liability insurance policy where Sherry-Netherland was named as an additional insured.

Personal InjuryElectrical ShockRoutine MaintenanceConstruction Site SafetyLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionIndemnification
References
21
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01501 [214 AD3d 857]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2023

Jin Kil Kim v. Franklin BH, LLC

The plaintiff, Jin Kil Kim, was injured by a falling bag of tile cement mix at a construction site in 2015 while working for World Hub Construction, Inc. He subsequently commenced an action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) against Franklin BH, LLC, the building owner, and 100 Broad Street, LLC d/b/a Essen, the lessee. The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, but the Supreme Court, Queens County, denied their motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, thereby leaving triable issues of fact regarding the accident's occurrence and its applicability under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction AccidentFalling Object InjurySummary Judgment DenialPersonal InjuryElevation-Related RiskAbsolute LiabilityAppellate AffirmationTriable Issues of FactOwner Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seong Sil Kim v. New York City Transit Authority

This dissenting opinion by Judge Gonzalez argues against the majority's decision to dismiss the complaint, asserting that a rational jury could have found the New York City Transit Authority (TA) negligent and a proximate cause of Seong Sil Kim's injuries. Judge Gonzalez contends that the train operator's testimony, combined with the plaintiffs' expert analysis, provided sufficient evidence that the operator failed to adhere to safety procedures, specifically by exceeding the speed limit after a warning of a person on the tracks. The dissent also supports the Supreme Court's rejection of the TA's proximate cause arguments, stating that the jury had enough evidence to conclude the train struck the plaintiff and that her actions were not the sole proximate cause. However, Judge Gonzalez finds the jury's apportionment of fault (70% to TA, 30% to plaintiff) to be against the weight of evidence, suggesting a reapportionment of 70% to the plaintiff and 30% to the TA, unless plaintiffs stipulate otherwise, due to overwhelming evidence of the plaintiff's suicide attempt. The dissent finally rejects the TA's argument regarding the Noseworthy charge.

NegligenceProximate CauseJury VerdictDamagesPain and SufferingApportionment of FaultTrain AccidentSubway AccidentSuicide AttemptPostpartum Depression
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jeong Woo Kim v. 511 E. 5th Street, LLC

Plaintiff Jeong Woo Kim, a sous chef at Goat Town, brought a putative collective action seeking unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation under the FLSA and NYLL against his employer and its managing members. Kim alleged he regularly worked 70 hours per week on a fixed salary without receiving overtime. Defendants contended Kim was an independent contractor or an exempt executive. The court conditionally certified the collective action, but limited it to kitchen staff members, finding Kim made a sufficient factual showing of a common compensation policy that violated the law for this group. The motion was denied for non-kitchen staff due to differing pay structures. The court ordered the defendants to produce contact information for kitchen staff employed on or after November 7, 2009, and approved the posting of notices at the restaurant.

Collective ActionFLSANYLLUnpaid WagesOvertime CompensationMinimum WageSous ChefKitchen StaffConditional CertificationEmployment Law
References
28
Case No. ADJ16432899; ADJ16015921; ADJ12380250; ADJ17195897
Regular
Aug 25, 2025

JUNG KIM vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant Jung Kim's Petition for Reconsideration of a WCJ's decision. The WCJ had found that Jung Kim did not sustain a specific psyche injury while employed by the County of Los Angeles and ordered a "take nothing" award. The applicant contended the WCJ should have relied on PQME Dian Weiss, Ph.D. The Appeals Board found the record not properly developed and expressed concerns about the WCJ's determination of specific injury versus cumulative trauma, suggesting consolidation with other related cases. A final decision on reconsideration is deferred pending further review of factual and legal issues.

PQMEpsyche injuryspecific injurycumulative traumaRolda v. Pitney BowesInc.predominant causesubstantial evidencemedical opinionWCJ
References
24
Case No. ADJ2589823 (SAC 0308902) ADJ2540345 (SAC 0345444) ADJ3219675 (SAC 0308903)
Regular
Oct 04, 2016

KIM RIVERS, vs. AON CORPORATION,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Applicant Kim Rivers' Petition for Removal. Applicant sought to overturn an order requiring the defendant, Aon Corporation, to retain a forensic accountant. Applicant argued this was irrelevant given a prior stipulation on benefits paid, but failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's order. The Board also denied a request for supplemental briefing.

Petition for RemovalForensic AccountantStipulation and OrderIrreparable HarmWCJ OrderAppeals Board Rule 10848Significant PrejudiceBenefits PaidSupplemental BriefAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 76 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