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 Jean

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order adjudicating Billy Jean II. a neglected child. The respondents, Ray II. and Colleen II., are the child's parents. The neglect finding was based on multiple reports of inadequate guardianship, domestic violence, poor hygiene, and unsanitary living conditions, including an incident where Ray II. allegedly assaulted Colleen II. while intoxicated in the child's presence. The Family Court found the testimonies of the respondents and a witness to be incredible, and concluded that the child was neglected due to the parents' failure to provide proper care and supervision, compounded by alcoholism and domestic violence. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's finding, stating there was sufficient proof to sustain the neglect determination.

Child Neglect AdjudicationDomestic Violence ImpactAlcoholism in Parental HomeUnsanitary Living ConditionsInadequate Parental SupervisionFamily Court JurisdictionAppellate ReviewCredibility of WitnessesSufficiency of EvidenceChild Protective Proceedings
References
2
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00065
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2021

Matter of Jean-Pierre v. Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr.

Marie Anite Jean-Pierre, an employee of Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, was assaulted and injured while leaving the hospital complex after her shift. Her claim for workers' compensation benefits was initially controverted by the employer, arguing the injuries did not arise out of employment. However, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found the claim compensable, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Appellate Division, Third Department, further affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the assault occurred within the precincts of her employment, as she was still within the employer's multi-building complex when attacked. The court found the Board's determination supported by substantial evidence.

AssaultPremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentSubstantial EvidenceMedical Office Complex InjuryEmployer's PremisesAppellate ReviewOff-Duty Injury
References
9
Case No. 10-CV-0347
Regular Panel Decision

Sentry Insurance v. Brand Management Inc.

Sentry Insurance initiated actions against Brand Management, Inc., Budget Services, Inc., and Hershel Weber for claims including breach of contract and alter ego liability, arising from workers' compensation insurance policies. Brand and Budget, controlled by Weber, allegedly breached the casualty agreement by failing to pay Sentry, leading to significant unpaid claims. The defendants engaged in recalcitrant discovery behavior, resulting in a preclusion order against their alter ego defense. The Court found Weber completely dominated Brand and Budget, using this domination to undercapitalize them and render them judgment-proof, thereby committing a wrong against Sentry. Consequently, the Court granted Sentry's motion for partial summary judgment on breach of contract against Brand and Budget, and on alter ego liability against Weber, while denying the defendants' cross-motion.

Breach of ContractAlter Ego LiabilityCorporate Veil PiercingSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation InsuranceCorporate UndercapitalizationInter-company Fund TransfersDiscovery SanctionsCorporate FormalitiesInsurance Dispute
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 1979

State v. Wingate

The case involves an appeal by a mother from a Family Court order declaring her child, Norma Jean K., permanently neglected and awarding custody to the Commissioner of the Department of Social Services with adoption power. The child had been under the care of the Orange County Department of Social Services since 1972. While the Family Court found the mother failed to maintain contact and plan for the child for over a year, the appellate court noted the mother's recent efforts to stabilize her life and reunite with Norma Jean. The court emphasized the need to consider parental development and the child's best interests through professional testimony. Consequently, the order was modified to remove the adoption empowerment and the matter was remitted for a new dispositional hearing, with custody temporarily remaining with the Commissioner.

Child NeglectPermanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationHabeas CorpusFoster Care PlacementDispositional HearingParental ContactDiligent Agency EffortsChild WelfareFamily Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sloth v. Constellation Brands, Inc.

Vicky Sloth sued her former employer, Constellation Brands, Inc., and several individual employees, alleging sexual harassment and discrimination based on gender, age, race, national origin, and disability under Title VII, ADEA, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or for summary judgment. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss most of Sloth's claims, including those under ADEA, ADA, § 1981, and Title VII claims for race, national origin, and color discrimination, as well as Human Rights Law claims against several individual employees. However, the court allowed Sloth's Title VII and New York Human Rights Law claims of hostile work environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment to proceed against Constellation Brands, Inc., and John Bognaski. Additionally, the court rejected the defendants' arguments that the state law claims were barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel due to a prior Workers' Compensation Board decision.

DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro QuoTitle VIIADEAADASection 1981New York State Human Rights LawEmployment Law
References
52
Case No. ADJ2818792 (MON 0312453) ADJ832261 (MON 0341441) ADJ4192657 (MON 0327492) ADJ229486 (MON 0333529) ADJ309456 (MON 0334315) ADJ2984620 (MON 0312452)
Regular
Jun 14, 2015

KAY BRAND vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Kay Brand's petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be filed within 25 days of service by mail, with specific rules for extensions on weekends and holidays. Crucially, the petition must be *received* by the Board within this timeframe, not merely mailed. As Brand's petition was filed on June 19, 2015, more than 25 days after the May 21, 2015 decision, it was dismissed as untimely.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationuntimelydismissedjurisdictionalWCJservice by mailCalifornia Code of RegulationsLabor Codeadministrative law judge
References
4
Case No. ADJ9714303
Regular
Feb 07, 2023

BRENT REYNOLDS vs. HOSTESS BRANDS, FORMERLY SELF-INSURED ADMINISTERED BY SELFINSURED SECURITY FUND VIA TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Hostess Brands' Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the reasoning of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who found that while Hostess Brands' communication regarding a non-refundable deposit for an Agreed Medical Evaluator's deposition was not in bad faith, it constituted an ex parte communication in violation of Labor Code section 4062.3(f). The ALJ also found the Applicant's counsel violated the same section by communicating with the evaluator without consulting the defense. As both parties violated the statute, the ALJ denied competing petitions for costs and sanctions, a decision affirmed by the Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorDeposition Fee AgreementNon-refundable DepositCross-examination FeesEx Parte CommunicationLabor Code section 4062.3Fee ScheduleMedical-legal Expenses
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schantz v. O'Sullivan

This case involves an appeal concerning the constitutionality of Chapter 71 of the Laws of 2002. Chapter 71 aimed to prevent the foreclosure of mortgages given by matrimonial litigants to their attorneys to secure legal fees, particularly those predating specific court rules. The plaintiff, who is the successor in interest to attorney Stewart T. Schantz, sought to foreclose on two mortgages executed by defendant Jean O’Sullivan for legal services rendered in her divorce action. The Supreme Court had previously granted the defendant's motion to cease the sale of her home, relying on Chapter 71, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion challenging its constitutionality. This Court reversed the Supreme Court's determination, finding that Chapter 71 constituted a substantial and unconstitutional impairment of contracts under the US Constitution's Contract Clause. The court concluded that the statute served too narrow a public purpose and its retroactive application was unforeseeable, thus declaring it unconstitutional.

Contract ClauseConstitutional LawRetroactive LegislationMortgage ForeclosureAttorney-Client FeesMatrimonial LawImpairment of ContractsJudicial ReviewLegislative IntentPublic Purpose Doctrine
References
30
Case No. ADJ7255523
Regular
Dec 10, 2015

JEAN THOMPSON vs. LUCKY SAVEMART SUPERMARKETS, PEGASUS RISK MANAGEMENT

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant sought to disqualify the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to a lien conference. The applicant based their request on grounds specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 641. However, the ALJ subsequently recused himself, and the matter was reassigned to a different ALJ. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for disqualification as moot.

WCABPetition for DisqualificationWCJLien ConferenceCode of Civil Procedure section 641MootRecusedAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPegasus Risk Management
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brauch v. Interstate Brands Corp.

A former employee of Interstate Brands Corp. sued Interstate, his union (IAM), and its representative for $50,000 in lost pension benefits after his benefits were terminated under a new IAM pension plan. The termination occurred because Interstate ceased contributions less than four years after joining the plan. The plaintiff alleged misrepresentation by the union and its representative, and failure to inform by Interstate regarding the plan's termination provision and their intent to cease contributions. The court, however, found no legal duty for the employer to inform the employee about collective bargaining agreement terms. Consequently, the appellate court unanimously reversed the lower court's denial of Interstate's motion for summary judgment, granted the motion, and dismissed the complaint against Interstate.

Pension Benefits TerminationEmployer LiabilityUnion LiabilityCollective Bargaining Agreement InterpretationDuty to InformSummary Judgment AppealWrongful Termination of BenefitsEmployee RightsLabor DisputeAppellate Reversal
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 126 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