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 Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. 91 Civ. 2519
Regular Panel Decision

Freer v. Mayer

Shareholder David Freer filed a derivative action against E. Hale Mayer and Progressive Bank, Inc., alleging violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Freer claimed that proxy statements omitted material facts regarding a retirement agreement between Mayer and the bank, particularly concerning its business purpose. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the federal claims, holding that directors were not obligated to disclose underlying motivations, provided objective material facts were disclosed. Subsequently, the court dismissed the remaining state law claims, including breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction after the federal claims were resolved.

Securities Exchange ActProxy StatementShareholder Derivative SuitSummary JudgmentFiduciary DutyCorporate WasteSupplemental JurisdictionMaterial OmissionBusiness Judgment RuleRule 14a-9
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of I-Conscious R. (George S.)

This case involves an appeal concerning a Family Court order that determined a respondent father abused and neglected his daughter and derivatively abused and neglected his son. The appellate court affirmed the fact-finding order, concluding that the petitioner presented a preponderance of evidence, including medical findings of genital herpes in the child, indicative of sexual abuse. The court upheld the neglect finding due to the father's failure to secure timely medical care for his daughter's severe symptoms. Additionally, the respondent's arguments regarding the suggestiveness of interviews, the testimony of his expert witness, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were all rejected by the court. An appeal against a separate order of protection was dismissed due to abandonment.

Child AbuseChild NeglectSexual AbuseGenital HerpesMedical EvidenceFamily Court ProceedingsSufficiency of EvidenceCredibility AssessmentIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 103 B.R. 416
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 1989

Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)

The court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, granting a preliminary injunction against the IAM for their unlawful strike activities targeting Eastern Air Lines at LaGuardia and Hartsfield Airports. The enjoined conduct includes trespassing, mass picketing, harassment, violence, and vandalism against Eastern's employees, customers, and property. The court found that these actions caused substantial and irreparable harm to Eastern and that public authorities were unable or unwilling to provide adequate protection. While the injunction imposed strict restrictions on these disruptive behaviors, the court denied Eastern's request to enjoin residential picketing, citing the Norris-LaGuardia Act. This decision aims to balance the unions' right to strike with Eastern's need to continue operations and protect its assets and personnel during the Chapter 11 reorganization.

Preliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeAirline IndustryStrike ActivityUnlawful ConductMass PicketingHarassmentVandalismUnion LiabilityNorris-LaGuardia Act
References
116
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Monique M.

The mother appealed a fact-finding order that found she abused her child Sonique M. and derivatively abused Monique M., Treston D., and Daymondray T., and two dispositional orders. The evidence showed the mother allowed her boyfriend, against whom an order of protection was issued, back into her home, where he sexually abused Sonique M., and the mother failed to intervene. However, the Family Court erred by issuing the dispositional orders without first conducting a mandatory dispositional hearing, which violated due process. The appellate court reversed the orders of disposition and remitted the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, for a dispositional hearing before a different judge due to concerns about the original judge's impartiality.

Child AbuseDerivative AbuseDispositional HearingFamily Court Act Article 10Parental JudgmentOrder of Protection ViolationSexual AbuseJudicial ImpartialityDue ProcessRemittitur
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1981

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Newman

Plaintiff insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, mistakenly paid $9,805.66 to defendant Ruth Newman, intended for an aggregate trust fund related to her deceased husband's workers' compensation benefits. After forwarding the correct payment to the fund, Liberty Mutual sought restitution from Newman, who refused. The Workers' Compensation Board declined to intervene, stating no recourse existed under the Workers' Compensation Law for the error. Special Term initially granted summary judgment to Liberty Mutual. On appeal, the judgment was modified, with the Appellate Division agreeing it was a mistake of fact, not an overpayment of benefits, thus affirming the denial of Newman's summary judgment motion. However, the case was remitted to Special Term for a hearing to determine if ordering full restitution would cause a detrimental change in Newman's position regarding her benefits, and clarified that interest and costs should not be awarded against her.

restitutionmistake of factworkers' compensationsummary judgmentunjust enrichmentdetrimental relianceequityinsurance carrieraggregate trust fundappellate review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2009

In re Sasha B.

The case concerns an appeal from a Family Court order in Bronx County, dated June 22, 2009, which found a respondent mother neglected her child. The determination stemmed from an incident where the mother left her sleeping 11.5-year-old child alone on a subway train. The child subsequently navigated her way back to school. The appellate court affirmed the fact-finding determination of neglect, citing corroborating statements and the child's inability to get home, which indicated an imminent risk of harm. However, the appeal concerning the child's placement was dismissed as moot. A dissenting justice argued that the evidence did not establish "imminent danger" as legally defined, noting that the child safely returned to school and prior alleged incidents lacked sufficient corroboration.

Child NeglectSubway IncidentParental SupervisionImminent DangerCorroboration of EvidenceFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewMootness DoctrineDissenting OpinionChild Welfare
References
9
Case No. ADJ1745994 (LAO 0863856)
Regular
Jul 29, 2015

VLADIMIR KIRAKOSYAN vs. QUALITY SECURITY SERVICE, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The defendant sought reconsideration of a procedural order memorializing stipulations that took an expedited hearing off calendar. The stipulations involved authorizing medical consultations, with the defendant claiming the applicant's counsel omitted a material fact. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as it was not filed from a final order. Furthermore, the petition for removal was denied, as the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and a unilateral mistake is not sufficient grounds to set aside stipulations.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalMinutes of HearingStipulationsDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightsLiabilitiesThreshold issue
References
11
Case No. ADJ7313244
Regular
Sep 14, 2012

KEVIN WRIGHT vs. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is issuing a notice of intention to sanction the defendant's attorneys $500 for misrepresenting the record and failing to follow procedural rules. The defendant's petition for reconsideration selectively quoted and omitted material facts from medical depositions, thereby distorting the evidence. Specifically, the defendant misrepresented a QME's opinion on industrial causation and applicant's stress levels. This failure to fairly state the evidence and provide specific record citations violates WCAB rules and warrants sanction.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5813cumulative trauma injuryindustrial causationPetition for ReconsiderationPanel QMEWCJRules of Practice and Procedurematerial misrepresentationselective quotation
References
0
Case No. ADJ10363674
Regular
Nov 17, 2016

RUBY BRADLEY vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ASSISTANCE; Permissibly SelfInsured, Adjusted By COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO WORK COMP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Ruby Bradley's petition for removal, upholding an order compelling her to attend a medical examination with a panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME). Bradley claimed due process violations regarding notice and a replacement PQME panel, but the Board found she failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCJ's report, incorporated by the Board, noted Bradley's own admission contradicted her claim of premature scheduling and highlighted a prior agreement to proceed with the original PQME. The Board also admonished Bradley's counsel for misleadingly omitting material facts, potentially constituting an abuse of the system.

Petition for RemovalCompelling AttendanceMedical ExaminationPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQMEIndustrial InjuryNervous SystemPsychiatric InjuriesDue ProcessReplacement Panel
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,903 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