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

Robertson v. Robertson

The case involves an appeal from an Ontario County Family Court order concerning child custody. The Family Court had improperly placed the burden of proof on the natural father, who was the appellant, despite finding him to be a fit parent. The court had awarded custody to the child's stepmother, the respondent, without explicitly determining if extraordinary circumstances existed, which is a prerequisite to deprive a natural parent of custody. The appellate court unanimously reversed the order, stating that if extraordinary circumstances are found, then the child's best interests, including preferences and living conditions, should guide the custody decision. The matter was remitted back to the Family Court for further proceedings, with a suggestion to update medical and social reports due to the time elapsed and changed living conditions.

Custody DisputeParental RightsExtraordinary CircumstancesBurden of ProofFamily LawChild's Best InterestRemittalAppellate ReviewStepparent Custody
References
3
Case No. ADJ11131264
Regular
Mar 12, 2018

JAMES MCEWAN vs. ONTARIO REIGN, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns a defendant's petition for removal of an order denying a change of venue. The defendant sought to move the case from Oxnard to Riverside, citing proximity to the alleged injury site and witness travel distances. The Appeals Board denied removal, finding the defendant failed to establish substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and did not adequately support its venue arguments under Labor Code section 5501.5(c). The Board noted that the defendant could refile a petition with sufficient witness information to support a claim of good cause under Labor Code section 5501.6(a).

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueWCABLabor Code Section 5501.5Good CauseCumulative TraumaHockey PlayerOntario ReignGallagher BassettRiverside District Office
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chaudhuri v. Green

Plaintiff, Aloke Chaudhuri, filed a lawsuit alleging federal constitutional rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy against Deputy Sheriffs Green and Halpin, Sheriff Povero, and the County of Ontario, following his arrest on June 2, 2006. The claims stemmed from alleged domestic incidents with his wife, Shukla Chaudhuri, whose charges against him were later dismissed. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that probable cause existed for the plaintiff's arrest for all charges and that the officers acted reasonably. Additionally, municipal liability claims and conspiracy claims were dismissed, the latter due to lack of class-based animus and the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine. The Court also declined supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

Civil RightsSection 1983False ArrestFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionConspiracySummary JudgmentProbable CauseMunicipal LiabilityIntracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine
References
65
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00935 [180 AD3d 1331]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2020

Matter of Emma D. (Kelly v. D.)

This case involves two appeals concerning Emma D. In Appeal No. 1, the Ontario County Department of Social Services (DSS) initiated a neglect proceeding against the mother, Kelly V.(D.). The mother's motion to change venue to Monroe County was denied due to her refusal to provide her actual residence. In Appeal No. 2, the grandmother, Margarita D., commenced a custody proceeding against the mother. Custody was granted to the grandmother, supported by findings of extraordinary circumstances including the mother's neglect, unstable living situation, mental health issues, and failure to address the child's special needs. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed both orders, including the supervised visitation arrangement between the mother and grandmother.

Child NeglectCustody DisputeFamily Court ActVenue ChangeExtraordinary CircumstancesSupervised VisitationParental RightsChild WelfareAppellate ReviewParental Fitness
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mulvihill v. New York

Plaintiff Donna Mulvihill, proceeding pro se, sued the State of New York alleging Fourth Amendment violations and state law claims related to Child Protective Services actions. The State moved to dismiss based on insufficient service and Eleventh Amendment immunity. Mulvihill attempted to amend her complaint twice, proposing various defendants. The court granted the State's motion to dismiss, confirming Eleventh Amendment immunity. It also ruled that 'Ontario County DSS' is not a suable entity and dismissed claims against Judge Doran due to judicial immunity. However, the court granted Mulvihill leave to file an amended complaint by August 15, 2013, to assert claims against Ontario County and individuals Holly Adams, Matt Grant, Rhonda Peterson, and Russ Standish.

Federal Civil ProcedureEleventh AmendmentJudicial ImmunityPro Se LitigantMotion to DismissLeave to AmendChild Protective ServicesConstitutional LawState ImmunityMunicipal Liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haystrand v. County of Ontario

The plaintiff was injured after falling from a scaffold while painting a building owned by the defendant. The plaintiff commenced an action alleging violations of the Labor Law, specifically Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on this claim. On appeal, the defendant contended that the court erred, arguing that the plaintiff's failure to use the scaffold's locking mechanism was dispositive. The appellate court rejected this argument, stating that an owner's statutory duty under Labor Law § 240 (1) requires furnishing, placing, and operating safety devices to give proper protection, and is not met merely by making devices available. The court also determined that the 'recalcitrant worker' doctrine did not apply because the defendant did not provide the safety devices. The plaintiff's own negligence was deemed irrelevant to a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The order was unanimously affirmed with costs.

Labor Law § 240 (1)scaffold accidentfall from heightowner liabilitystatutory dutysummary judgmentrecalcitrant worker doctrinecontributory negligenceappellate reviewconstruction accident
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ledain v. Town of Ontario

The plaintiff, a retiree, initiated a lawsuit against his former municipal employer, referred to as "the Town," for an alleged breach of contract. The plaintiff contended that the Town had violated his vested rights to postemployment health insurance benefits, which were established under an expired collective bargaining agreement. Specifically, the Town replaced the plaintiff's Blue Million Plan with Blue Choice plans that incurred monthly prescription costs, contrary to the original "no cost" provision. The Town sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the plaintiff failed to pursue the issue through the contractually mandated grievance arbitration procedure and did not allege a breach of the union's duty of fair representation. The court ultimately ruled that the grievance arbitration procedure was the exclusive method for resolving such disputes, even for retirees, due to the broad arbitration clause in the agreement. Consequently, the court granted the defendant Town's motion to dismiss the complaint, affirming that a direct lawsuit was not permissible without an allegation of a union's failure in its duty of fair representation.

Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ArbitrationRetiree BenefitsHealth InsuranceBreach of ContractDuty of Fair RepresentationTaylor LawCivil Service LawTown LawPublic Sector Labor Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ferraina v. Ontario Honda

Claimant, an auto mechanic diagnosed with hypophosphatemia rickets, developed stress fractures and filed for workers' compensation benefits, alleging work-related injuries. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision. The Board credited the employer's medical consultant, who attributed the injuries solely to the pre-existing condition, and found the claimant's job duties less rigorous than claimed. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its credibility determinations regarding medical evidence.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' CompensationStress FracturesHypophosphatemia RicketsPre-existing ConditionCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceCredibility DeterminationAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Steinhauser v. Ontario County

A motor vehicle representative experienced pain in her right elbow and hand after being required to work in an abnormal position at a new work station. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge classified her condition as an occupational disease. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reclassified it as an accidental injury, citing September 28, 2000, as the accident date. The employer appealed, contesting the change in theory and denying an accident occurred. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, drawing parallels to a previous case, Matter of Farcasin v PDG, Inc., involving similar circumstances of injuries from an ergonomically incorrect work station.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryOccupational DiseaseErgonomicsWork Station InjuryElbow InjuryHand InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionCausation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 1981

Lanza v. Quebec & Ontario Transportation Co.

A longshoreman (plaintiff) was injured in 1977 while working on the defendant's vessel. He subsequently settled a federal workers' compensation claim with his employer's carrier in 1978; however, no formal compensation order was filed, although a claims examiner's letter acknowledged the settlement. In 1979, the plaintiff initiated an action against the defendant, who moved for summary judgment contending the complaint was time-barred under 33 U.S.C. § 933(b), which mandates third-party actions within six months of settlement. Special Term initially denied the defendant's motion, but the appellate court reversed this decision. Citing a precedent, the court held that the claims examiner's letter functioned as an 'award in a compensation order,' thereby triggering the statute of limitations, and rendering the plaintiff's action time-barred.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationLongshoremanFederal LawThird-Party ActionSettlementCompensation OrderAppellate ReviewReversal
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 20 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