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. 2025 NY Slip Op 06564
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Matter of Raivyn BB. (Courtney BB.)

This case concerns appeals from Family Court orders adjudicating Raivyn BB. a neglected child due to alleged parental drug use by mother Courtney BB. and father Kip AA. The child tested positive for methamphetamines after birth, prompting neglect petitions. The Appellate Division reversed the neglect findings against both parents. The court found that the evidence did not establish a direct causal link between the mother's methamphetamine use and the child's impairment, noting potential withdrawal symptoms from prescribed Subutex. Furthermore, the father's conduct, including hostility or refusal to sign a birth certificate, was not deemed to constitute neglect, and no evidence showed his knowledge of the mother's drug use. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

Neglected ChildParental Drug UseChild ToxicologyMethamphetamineSubutexFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewCausative ConnectionImpairment of ChildMinimum Degree of Care
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Moss

Defendant Robert Moss, charged with methamphetamine offenses, moved to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his residence. He claimed the search warrant was based on evidence from illegal trash searches, violating his Fourth Amendment rights. Officer Bryan Harris conducted multiple trash searches after an anonymous tip, finding items associated with methamphetamine manufacturing. The court examined the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and the principles established in *Katz v. United States* and *California v. Greenwood* regarding the expectation of privacy in discarded trash. The motion was denied, as the court ruled that individuals lose any reasonable expectation of privacy in trash once it is placed for collection at the designated time, regardless of its location within the curtilage.

Fourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureMotion to SuppressTrash SearchExpectation of PrivacyCurtilageAbandoned PropertyCriminal ProcedureMethamphetamineDrug Offenses
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Caballero

Saul Caballero, who pleaded guilty to two drug conspiracies (heroin and methamphetamine distribution), objected to an aggravating role enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines, arguing it would increase his mandatory-minimum sentence and thus require a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt as per Alleyne v. United States. Following a two-day Fatico hearing, the District Court concluded that the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Caballero was a manager or supervisor of the heroin distribution conspiracy, but not the crystal methamphetamine conspiracy. The Court also rejected Caballero's argument that Alleyne mandates a jury to determine safety-valve eligibility, affirming that judicial fact-finding by a preponderance of the evidence for safety-valve criteria is constitutionally permissible as it potentially lessens, rather than increases, the mandatory minimum sentence. Therefore, the defendant's motion for a jury determination was denied.

Sentencing GuidelinesAggravating Role EnhancementMandatory Minimum SentenceSafety Valve EligibilityDrug ConspiracyHeroin DistributionMethamphetamine DistributionPreponderance of EvidenceJury DeterminationConstitutional Law
References
24
Case No. 05-13-01535-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2014

Rodney Wade Parker v. State

Rodney Wade Parker appealed the revocation of his community supervision for felony driving while intoxicated. The State filed a motion to revoke based on twelve allegations, five of which the trial court found true, including methamphetamine use and failure to complete a DWI/Drug Court Program. Parker argued the trial court erred by admitting extraneous bad acts, that his admissions to his probation officer about methamphetamine use were inadmissible under Article 38.22, and that the evidence was insufficient to prove he failed to pay a participation fee without showing his ability to pay. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, modifying only a clerical error regarding Parker's plea. It held that extraneous bad acts were admissible in unitary revocation proceedings, that statements to a probation officer not acting in tandem with law enforcement are generally not subject to Article 38.22, and that proof of any single violation is sufficient for revocation.

Felony DWICommunity Supervision RevocationMethamphetamine UseExtraneous Bad ActsCustodial InterrogationMiranda WarningsProbation Officer TestimonyDWI/Drug Court ProgramSufficiency of EvidenceCriminal Appeals
References
33
Case No. ADJ10435480
Regular
May 17, 2017

BRUCE MOORE vs. JEMICO, LLC, LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's award finding applicant sustained industrial injuries, not to decide the merits, but to issue a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions. Defendants' Petition for Reconsideration was found to be skeletal, lacking specific record references and relying on unsubstantiated claims, including a Wikipedia search. The Board also noted the defendants' failure to exercise due diligence in developing the record regarding applicant's alleged methamphetamine use. Sanctions are contemplated against defendants and their attorney for bad-faith actions and tactics.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsReasonable ExpensesLabor Code § 5813WCAB Rule 10561Findings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeTemporary Total DisabilitySelf-Procured Medical Expenses
References
8
Case No. 06-08-00024-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2008

Charles Terrell McClure v. State

Charles Terrell McClure appealed his sentence for constructive delivery of methamphetamine, challenging the admission of extraneous offense evidence during the punishment phase. He argued insufficient evidence corroborated his extrajudicial confession and that the evidence's probative value was substantially outweighed by its potential for prejudice. The Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court held that extrajudicial confessions of extraneous offenses do not require corroboration in the punishment phase and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence, especially considering McClure had filed an application for community supervision.

Criminal LawExtraneous OffensesPunishment PhaseAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionCorroboration of ConfessionExtrajudicial AdmissionProbative ValueUnfair PrejudiceSentencing
References
18
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08418 [155 AD3d 1466]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2017

Matter of Natalee M. (Nathan M.)

The Broome County Department of Social Services initiated a neglect proceeding against Nathan M. (father) and Susan N. (mother) concerning their child, Natalee M. The mother tested positive for methamphetamine at birth and denied her pregnancy, failing to secure prenatal care and medical consent. Both parents were found to have failed in providing a safe home environment, as their residence was undergoing extensive renovations. Family Court adjudicated the child neglected by both parents. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the neglect findings against both parents and dismissed the mother's appeal from the dispositional order, noting her consent to its terms.

Child NeglectParental NeglectFamily Court Act Article 10Drug AbuseUnsuitable Home EnvironmentParental ResponsibilitiesPreponderance of EvidenceAppellate DivisionAffirmation of NeglectDismissed Appeal
References
12
Case No. ADJ7700512
Regular
Jan 27, 2017

John E. Skaff vs. CITY OF STOCKTON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision denying a police officer's claim for prostate cancer. The applicant sought an adverse inference against the City of Stockton for failing to produce Hazard Awareness Recognition Program (HARP) forms allegedly detailing chemical exposures during methamphetamine lab investigations. The Board rescinded the prior decision, returning the case for further development of the record. This is to determine whether the City had a duty to retain and produce the HARP forms, and if the applicant exercised reasonable diligence in seeking them. The Board will then allow the WCJ to decide if an adverse inference is warranted and issue a new decision.

Hazard Awareness Recognition ProgramHARP formsadverse inferenceindustrial causationprostate cancerchemical exposuremethamphetamine labspolice officerQualified Medical ExaminerDr. Juan Cesar Larach
References
1
Case No. E2015-01256-COA-R3-JV-FILED-MAY 16, 2016
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2016

In re Mason E.

This case concerns an appeal by Father, Jody E., from a circuit court's finding of severe child abuse and the admission of his minor children's positive drug test results for methamphetamine. The Tennessee Department of Children's Services initiated proceedings after the children were found in a home associated with meth manufacturing. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the drug test results were admissible under the business records exception to hearsay and that sufficient clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that Father knowingly exposed his children to an environment likely to cause serious bodily injury or death, thus constituting severe child abuse.

Child AbuseMethamphetamine ExposureDrug TestingHair Follicle TestBusiness Records ExceptionHearsayExpert TestimonyConfrontation ClauseParental RightsDependency and Neglect
References
19
Case No. 2015-08-0001
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2015

Ellis, John v. A AIR-One

Employee John D. Ellis filed a request for an Expedited Hearing after his employer, A Air-One Services, and its insurer, Auto Owners' Insurance, denied his workers' compensation claim based on an illegal drug usage defense. An initial urine drug test was positive for methamphetamines, but a subsequent hair sample test was negative. The Court found Mr. Ellis' testimony, denying drug use as the proximate cause of his September 19, 2014 back injury, to be credible. Due to conflicting drug test results and the absence of evidence supporting the defense, the Court ruled that the employer's illegal drug usage defense was not supported by the evidence.

illegal drug usage defenseproximate causeconflicting drug testsback injuryexpedited hearingTennessee Code AnnotatedWorkers' Compensation Claimsmedical benefitstemporary disability benefitsL2-L3 disc herniation
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 21 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