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

Kesterson v. Varner

Bruce Varner (Father) appealed the trial court's dismissal of his Petition to Modify Custody of his son, J.V. The original custody was awarded to Judy Kesterson (Mother) in a 1990 divorce. Varner sought modification in 2002, citing J.V.'s serious mental health issues, including ADHD, Bipolar Disorder, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder, as a material change in circumstances. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding Varner failed to prove a material change in circumstances or that a custody change was in the child's best interest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that while a material change in circumstances was established due to J.V.'s mental health, Varner did not meet the burden of proof that changing custody to him would be in J.V.'s best interest, especially given expert testimony on J.V.'s manipulative behavior and the guardian ad litem's recommendation for J.V. to remain with the mother. The court also affirmed the allocation of attorney's fees and guardian ad litem fees to Varner.

Custody ModificationChild Mental HealthParental DiscretionBest Interest of ChildGuardian Ad Litem FeesAttorney Fees AwardAppellate ReviewTrial Court DismissalPsychiatric DiagnosisAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
References
29
Case No. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of John Z.

This case involves an appeal from an order recommitting the respondent to petitioner's custody due to a dangerous mental disorder. The respondent, with a history of multiple killings and a prior finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, had his parole revoked after exhibiting aggressive and threatening behavior upon conditional release. The Supreme Court determined he suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder with narcissistic and paranoid features, which was deemed a dangerous mental disorder justifying civil confinement under CPL 330.20. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the argument that the diagnosis was legally insufficient and upholding the finding of current dangerousness based on expert testimony, the respondent's history of violence, and his lack of insight into his condition.

dangerous mental disordercivil confinementantisocial personality disordernarcissistic featuresparanoid featuresCPL 330.20recommitmentmental illnessparole revocationexpert testimony
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 1996

Claim of Palevsky v. New York City Board of Education

In 1986, while working as an education associate in the Bronx, the claimant sustained a fractured nose due to a student altercation and filed a timely workers' compensation claim, receiving benefits. The case remained open for a pending nasal surgery issue. Years later, in 1992, the claimant sought compensation for alleged consequential posttraumatic stress disorder. The self-insured employer, the New York City Board of Education, argued that Workers' Compensation Law § 28, a two-year statute of limitations, barred this new claim. However, both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed that Section 28 does not apply to consequential injuries. Upon appeal, the Court concurred, holding that a subsequent claim for disability compensation related to injuries in an earlier, timely claim is not barred by the two-year limit for amendment.

Workers' CompensationPosttraumatic Stress DisorderStatute of LimitationsConsequential InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 28Time BarBoard DecisionAppealWorkplace InjuryNasal Fracture
References
3
Case No. 10 Civ. 3314; 10 Civ. 5013
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2010

Alzheimer's Foundation of America, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This consolidated opinion addresses dueling motions to dismiss in two civil actions involving the Alzheimer’s Foundation of Americas, Inc. (the "Foundation") and the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the "Association"). The Foundation initiated a lawsuit alleging misrepresentation, trademark dilution, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, conversion, and UCC violations against the Association and Northern Trust. Conversely, the Association filed its own complaint asserting claims of trademark infringement, libel, injurious falsehood, false designation, dilution, fraud, tortious interference, injury to business reputation, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy against the Foundation and several individuals. The court denied motions to dismiss the Lanham Act, dilution, and unfair competition claims for both parties, but granted motions to dismiss the UCC, conversion, libel, unjust enrichment, and fraud claims, including all claims against Northern Trust. Leave to amend the complaints was granted.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionLanham ActDilutionUnjust EnrichmentConversionFraudCollateral EstoppelMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 1985

National Union Fire Insurance v. Ideal Mutual Insurance

This case involves an appeal concerning personal jurisdiction over Parthenon Insurance Company. The plaintiff appealed an order denying its motion to reargue and renew opposition to Parthenon's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, granting the plaintiff's motion to reargue and renew, and subsequently denying Parthenon's motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing for limited discovery on the jurisdictional issue. The central legal question is whether Parthenon, a 'captive' insurer for Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) and its subsidiaries, which conduct business in New York, is subject to personal jurisdiction in New York State. The court found that enough evidence was presented to warrant discovery to establish jurisdiction.

Personal JurisdictionCorporate VeilSubsidiary LiabilityParent CompanyInsurance CoverageMotion to DismissDiscoveryAppellate ReviewCPLRCaptive Insurer
References
4
Case No. 01-13-00817-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2015

Hercules Offshore, Inc. and the Hercules Offshore Drilling Company, LLC v. Excell Crane & Hydraulics, Inc.

The appellants, Hercules Offshore, Inc. and The Hercules Offshore Drilling Company, LLC, filed an opposition to Excell Crane & Hydraulics, Inc.'s motion for rehearing. Hercules argues that the court's original ruling correctly applied the Ogea rule, which dictates that an indemnitor's duty to insure its indemnity obligation does not affect the indemnitee's responsibility to obtain additional insured coverage. Hercules contends that Excell's arguments regarding the scope of additional insured coverage, the exclusion of worker's compensation policies, and the reasonableness of the Brunson settlement were either previously rejected or lack merit. Hercules also asserts that Excell is barred from contesting the settlement's reasonableness due to its refusal to defend or indemnify. Therefore, Hercules prays that Excell’s Motion for Rehearing be denied.

Appellate lawContract disputeIndemnificationAdditional insuredOgea ruleBreach of contractInsurance coverageSettlement reasonablenessMotion for rehearingTexas law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klein v. Man Sui

The plaintiff, a police officer, sought damages under General Municipal Law § 205-e for injuries sustained while apprehending the defendant. The defendant had fled a traffic stop and subsequently pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the plaintiff adequately identified the violated statute and described the injury, establishing a causal connection between the defendant's actions and the injury. The defendant's opposition, based on a chiropractor's affidavit regarding the plaintiff's pre-existing back condition, was deemed insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact concerning causation, although it may be relevant for damages apportionment.

Police Officer InjuryGeneral Municipal Law 205-eSummary JudgmentLiabilityCausationPre-existing ConditionWorkers' Compensation BenefitsDisorderly ConductTraffic StopApprehension
References
6
Case No. ADJ8136512 ADJ8136526
Regular
Apr 30, 2019

SOLANGE TUCKER vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and REHABILITATION, PAROLE and COMMUNITY SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior award. The original award found applicant sustained industrial injuries to her shoulder, knees, psyche, hypertension, headaches, and a sleep disorder, resulting in 73% permanent partial disability. The defendant argued against the findings regarding the sleep disorder, temporary disability, and the overall PD rating. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings, finding substantial evidence supported the award for sleep disorder and temporary disability, and that the psychiatric impairment did not subsume the sleep disorder impairment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryRight ShoulderRight KneeLeft KneePsycheHypertensionSleep Arousal Disorder
References
7
Case No. ADJ8782360
Regular
Jun 01, 2018

Eldridge Taylor vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration, affirming a prior award to Eldridge Taylor. The award included permanent disability for cumulative trauma injuries, sleep disorder, and hearing loss. The employer argued the sleep disorder rating was subsumed by orthopedic pain, the hearing loss lacked substantial evidence, and the WCJ failed to properly apportion non-industrial factors. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding sufficient medical evidence for the sleep disorder and hearing loss. The dissenting opinion argued the sleep disorder award should be rescinded as it stemmed solely from industrial pain already rated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEldridge TaylorCalifornia Department of Corrections and RehabilitationLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundADJ8782360Cumulative TraumaCorrectional OfficerParole OfficerSleep Disorder
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 600 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