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

Laura G. v. Peter G.

This case addresses the paternity and child support obligations of a husband, Peter G., for a child, Alyssa, conceived through artificial insemination during his marriage to Laura G. The separation agreement initially absolved Peter G. of financial responsibility for Alyssa, which the court previously deemed void against public policy. The central issues were whether strict compliance with Domestic Relations Law § 73 for artificial insemination consent was required, and if Peter G. was responsible for child support based on consent or equitable estoppel. The court found that strict compliance with DRL § 73 was not required, and clear and convincing evidence showed Peter G.'s consent to the insemination. Furthermore, the court applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel, citing Peter G.'s actions and representations, and the best interests of the child, to hold him responsible for child support.

Artificial InseminationPaternityChild SupportEquitable EstoppelDomestic Relations LawFamily Court ActParental ObligationVasectomySeparation AgreementConsent
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pardo v. Bialystoker Center & Bikur Cholim, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, New York County. The first order, dated September 12, 2002, and the second, dated February 27, 2003, had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and precluded him from asserting Labor Law claims at trial concerning the alleged failure of defendants to secure a scaffold with "tie-ins." The appellate court modified the lower court's orders, vacating the provisions that barred the plaintiff from offering evidence regarding the defendants' alleged failure to use tie-ins. The court affirmed the orders in all other respects. It emphasized that under Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff only needs to demonstrate that injuries were partially attributable to the defendant's failure to implement statutorily mandated safety measures to protect against elevation-related risks. The court also clarified that contributory negligence is irrelevant in such cases. The plaintiff's belated request to plead a violation of Industrial Code § 23-5.8 (g) was denied due to an unequivocal waiver of his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

Labor LawScaffold SafetySummary JudgmentElevation HazardsProximate CauseContributory NegligenceTie-insWorkplace AccidentStatutory Safety MeasuresAppellate Decision
References
7
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06808
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2025

Matter of C.G. (E.G.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed an appeal concerning a Family Court's finding of neglect against respondent mother, E.G., regarding her child, C.G. The court affirmed the finding of neglect, citing two instances of the mother's violent and belligerent conduct that necessitated social services intervention to ensure the child's safety and well-being. These incidents included an attempted stabbing and an altercation with police in Texas that frightened and injured the child. The court determined the child's emotional well-being was at imminent risk due to the mother's actions. The appeal of the dispositional order was dismissed as moot because its terms had expired, and the child had been discharged back to the mother's care. The court also rejected the mother's contention regarding conforming pleadings to proof, finding ample notice was provided.

Child NeglectParental MisconductFamily Court ActAppellate DivisionMootness DoctrineFact-Finding DeterminationDispositional OrderChild SafetyProtective ServicesViolent Conduct
References
7
Case No. ADJ4140574 (VNO 0417628) ADJ3588068 (VNO 0472981)
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

KEVIN THOMPSON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant Kevin Thompson an additional attorney's fee of $1,500 under Labor Code section 5801. This fee is for services rendered by his attorney in successfully defending against the defendant's petition for writ of review to the Court of Appeal. The Board disallowed the requested clerical fees as section 5801 applies only to attorney services. Additionally, the request for costs under Labor Code section 5811 was denied due to the lack of required itemization and supporting documentation.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's feePetition for Writ of ReviewAppeals BoardSupplemental awardReasonable attorney's feeAppellate levelPenaltyClerical servicesLabor Code § 5811
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

P.G. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiffs P.G. and D.G., on behalf of their minor child J.G., sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). They sought reimbursement for J.G.'s enrollment at Eagle Hill School for the 2010-2011 academic year, alleging the DOE failed to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The court reviewed an administrative decision by a State Review Officer (SRO) from April 6, 2012, which found DOE's individualized education program (IEP) for J.G. adequate and reversed a prior Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) decision. The court denied the parents' motion in part and granted the DOE's motion in part, affirming the SRO's findings on the IEP's procedural and substantive soundness. However, the court remanded the issue of the appropriateness of a 12:1:1 classroom placement to the SRO for further consideration.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education ProgramSpecial EducationTuition ReimbursementAdministrative ReviewState Review OfficerImpartial Hearing OfficerProcedural AdequacySubstantive Adequacy
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Erin G.

Patrick G. appealed two Family Court orders from Queens County concerning child sexual abuse against his daughter, Erin G. The initial orders found him guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree and directed him to stay away from Erin until her eighteenth birthday. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal concerning the first order as superseded. The court affirmed the dispositional order, allowing for future applications for supervised visitation. The decision affirmed the Family Court's finding of abuse, concluding that Erin G.'s sworn in-camera testimony, demonstration with anatomically correct dolls, and expert validation sufficiently corroborated her out-of-court statements. The appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and undue harshness of the protective order were rejected.

Child protective servicesSexual abuseChild testimonyCorroborationIneffective assistance of counselOrder of protectionFamily Court ActAppellate reviewExpert witnessAnatomically correct dolls
References
11
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07300 [144 AD3d 761]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2016

Mammone v. T.G. Nickel & Associates, LLC

The plaintiff, a maintenance worker, fell from a ladder while attempting to change air filters at Garden City High School. He commenced an action against T.G. Nickel & Associates, LLC, the construction manager, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing these causes of action against Nickel. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiff was not engaged in a protected activity under Labor Law § 240 (1), his accident did not involve construction, demolition, or excavation under Labor Law § 241 (6), and Nickel lacked authority to supervise or control the plaintiff's work for the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallSummary JudgmentLabor Law 200Labor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Common-Law NegligenceAppellate ReviewConstruction Manager Liability
References
9
Case No. ADJ1179569 (AHM 0099178)
Regular
Jun 10, 2011

JERRY CHASTAIN vs. COUNTY OF ORANGE, ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, USF&G

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address USF&G's challenge to liability for an applicant's prostate cancer, who died after a prolonged period following exposure. The Board rescinded the prior decision, finding the WCJ erred by not fully addressing liability under Labor Code section 5500.5, specifically regarding the latency period and last date of injurious exposure. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision on liability, while affirming the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFire Apparatus EngineerProstate CancerContinuous Trauma InjuryLabor Code Section 5412Labor Code Section 5500.5Labor Code Section 3212.1 PresumptionLatency PeriodInjurious ExposureCumulative Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Nicole G.

The Rockland County Department of Social Services appealed two Family Court orders concerning child protective proceedings against Nicole G. and Daniella G., which had denied petitions and dismissed the proceedings. The appeal affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that Nicole G.'s out-of-court statements regarding her father's alleged abuse were insufficiently corroborated by other evidence. Although witnesses cross-corroborated each other's testimony and Nicole G. provided a narrative, she refused to testify. An expert witness also failed to provide the necessary corroborating evidence with a reasonable degree of certainty. Consequently, the allegations of abuse were not established by a preponderance of the evidence.

Child Protective ProceedingsFamily Court Act Article 10Child AbuseChild NeglectCorroboration of StatementsOut-of-Court StatementsCredibility of WitnessesFact-Finding HearingAdmissibility of EvidenceExpert Testimony
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Labor Relations Board v. Goodman

This case involves an appeal concerning the interaction between the National Labor Relations Act and the Bankruptcy Code. Appellants, the NLRB and the Union, challenged a Bankruptcy Court order that shielded James M. Goodman and Goodman Automatic Sprinkler Corporation (GASC) from labor law liabilities based on Goodman's Chapter 7 discharge. The District Court affirmed that Goodman's personal discharge protects him from pre-petition monetary and non-monetary obligations arising from a rejected collective bargaining agreement. However, the court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's finding that GASC was also shielded, concluding that Goodman's discharge does not protect GASC from alleged obligations. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings, including a determination of the alter-ego status of Goodman and GASC under applicable labor law standards.

BankruptcyChapter 7National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesAlter Ego DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementDischargeable DebtsPrimary JurisdictionLabor LawEmployer Obligations
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 8,396 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