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. ADJ366995
Regular
Jan 31, 2011

MARVIN BRANSCOMB (Deceased), MABLE JEAN BRANSCOMB (Widow) vs. CITY OF COMPTON, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Compton's petition for a stay of a $\$250,000$ death benefit award. The award was for prostate cancer, determined to be work-related for a deceased deputy sheriff. The Board explained that it can effectively stay execution by withholding the certified copy of the award, which is its standard practice during pending appellate review. Therefore, a separate stay order is unnecessary.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for StayFindings and AwardDeath BenefitsPetition for Writ of ReviewReconsiderationCertified Copy of AwardWithholding Certified CopyStay of ExecutionLabor Code § 5808
References
2
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. 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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

The case concerns Plaintiff Barbara Jean Smith's challenge to the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her disability benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) applications. Presided over by Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford, the District Court reviewed the administrative decision. Plaintiff alleged errors by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at various stages of the disability analysis, including an incomplete consideration of her impairments and improper assessment of medical opinions. She also contended that the Appeals Council failed to consider new evidence. The Court found substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner's decision, concluding that the ALJ adequately considered all relevant impairments and appropriately weighed the medical evidence. Additionally, the Court determined that the newly submitted evidence would not have altered the outcome. Consequently, the Court granted the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Plaintiff's motion.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeALJ DecisionMedical Opinion EvidenceAppeals Council ReviewMental ImpairmentsPhysical ImpairmentsResidual Functional CapacityAdministrative Law Judge
References
59
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04861
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2020

People v. Janvier

Defendant Jean Janvier appealed his 2014 conviction for assault and resisting arrest stemming from a 2013 incident where he assaulted two New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) inspectors during a traffic stop. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the convictions and rejecting arguments regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and the inspectors' authority. The court declined to reduce Janvier's one-year sentence despite potential immigration consequences, emphasizing the violent nature of the crime against peace officers. A dissenting opinion argued for a one-day sentence reduction to mitigate severe immigration repercussions, citing Janvier's lack of prior criminal history and the circumstances of the incident, including a passenger-initiated chokehold before the assault. The dissent also highlighted recent legislative amendments concerning misdemeanor sentences and immigration consequences, arguing for its application to the case.

Assault Second DegreeAssault Third DegreeResisting ArrestPeace Officer AssaultTLC InspectorTraffic Stop ViolenceSentence ReviewImmigration DeportationAggravated FelonyAppellate Affirmation
References
32
Case No. ADJ3362717 (VNO 0348210) ADJ785044 (VNO 0327922)
Regular
Jul 02, 2012

JEAN WHITE vs. TACO BELL CORPORATION, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Jean White's workers' compensation claim against Taco Bell Corporation and its insurer, Zurich Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has issued an order denying White's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB adopted the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in its decision.

WCABOrder Denying ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJ reportJean WhiteTaco Bell CorporationZurich Insurance CompanyADJ3362717VNO 0348210
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 2001

Claim of Jean-Lubin v. Home Care Services for Independent Living

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from January 3, 2001, which denied her application for reconsideration of an earlier ruling. The Board's initial decision found that the claimant did not sustain a further causally related disability beyond the initial left hemothorax injury from a July 20, 1992 accident. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge had previously amended the findings to include additional injuries based on Leo Batash's testimony, the Board rescinded this, limiting injuries to the left hemothorax and chest. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's denial of reconsideration, stating that no new evidence was presented and that conflicting medical opinions, including those of Jean Claude Compás and Leo Batash, presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationDisability ClaimCausationMedical OpinionBoard ReconsiderationAppellate ReviewConflicting EvidenceInjury ScopeContusion InjuryMusculoskeletal Injury
References
9
Case No. ADJ10037192
Regular
Mar 29, 2017

JEAN MERVILLE vs. SHERATON HOTEL AND STARR INDEMNITY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the applicant, Jean Merville. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, finding that removal is an extraordinary remedy. The WCAB determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denial, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and denied the removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeADJ10037192Gallagher Bassett ServicesSheraton HotelStarr Indemnity
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 66 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