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. 772 F.Supp. 1412
Regular Panel Decision

Association of Surrogates & Supreme Court Reporters v. New York

Defendant Crosson moved for an order clarifying an August 29, 1991 Order and Judgment, which implemented a Second Circuit mandate declaring New York's lag-payroll law unconstitutional. Crosson argued that the Judgment enjoined the law's application to both unrepresented and represented employees, while State Defendants maintained it covered only represented employees. The Court acknowledged the Second Circuit's focus on represented employees due to contractual impairment but clarified its own Order and Judgment to include all employees, finding the lag-payroll statute non-severable. The Court reasoned that severing the statute to apply only to unrepresented employees would significantly alter the original legislative intent, reducing the expected savings by 90%. Consequently, the Court granted Crosson's motion, clarifying that the August 29, 1991 Order and Judgment applies to both unrepresented and represented employees.

Lag Payroll LawContract ClauseUnited States ConstitutionSecond Circuit MandateDeclaratory JudgmentRestitution of WagesSeverability of StatuteLegislative IntentUnrepresented EmployeesRepresented Employees
References
11
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Johns-Manville Corp.

This case involves appeals from a District Court's Opinion and Order concerning a Bankruptcy Court's Clarifying Order and Findings related to the Johns-Manville Corporation's asbestos bankruptcy. The original 1986 injunction barred direct suits against Manville's insurers, including Travelers. Subsequently, various plaintiff groups filed direct actions against Travelers, leading to settlements that the Bankruptcy Court approved. Objecting Insurers and Objecting Claimants appealed this approval, challenging the Bankruptcy Court's subject matter jurisdiction and the fairness of the settlement. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction to enjoin direct action suits and approve the settlements, considering these suits as indirect attempts to recover from Manville's insurance policies. However, the District Court vacated the "gate-keeping" provision of the Clarifying Order, finding it exceeded the Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction. The motions to dismiss the appeals were denied.

Asbestos LitigationBankruptcyInsurance LawDirect Action SuitsSettlement AppealSubject Matter JurisdictionBar OrderJudgment ReductionDue ProcessChapter 11 Reorganization
References
44
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. SAC 0343316
Regular
Aug 14, 2007

MELODY BRIDGES vs. SCHURMAN FINE PAPERS, CRUM & FORSTER

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of its prior order dismissing the applicant's petition, finding it was timely filed. Despite the applicant's petition being deemed timely, the Board, adopting the Judge's report, ultimately denied reconsideration of the original April 4, 2007 findings. This rescinds the dismissal order but affirms the denial of the initial request for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition to VacateOpinion and Order Dismissing ReconsiderationTimeliness of FilingPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ Findings and OrdersTemporary DisabilitySalary During DisabilityProof of ServiceElectronic Case History Log
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Avila-Blum v. Casa de Cambio Delgado, Inc.

In this case, District Judge Marrero reviewed the defendants' objections to a protective order issued by Magistrate Judge Andrew Peek. The protective order barred defendants from inquiring into plaintiff Monica Avila-Blum's immigration status during her deposition, citing the prejudicial effect and minimal relevance at the liability stage, and the chilling effect on undocumented workers pursuing employment claims. Defendants argued that the Magistrate Judge erred in applying case law and in limiting the inquiry to the damages phase, asserting its relevance to credibility and citing Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB. Judge Marrero affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order, finding it was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, agreeing that the potential for prejudice and the questionable probative value outweighed the defendants' discovery interests at the liability stage. The court also clarified that Hoffman Plastic was distinguishable and limited in scope. Consequently, the defendants' objections were denied, upholding the protective order.

Protective OrderImmigration StatusDiscovery LimitsCredibility EvidencePrejudicial EvidenceFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEmployment DiscriminationUndocumented WorkersDistrict Court ReviewMagistrate Judge Order
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 1992

Effner v. Scott

This is an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Delaware County, which partially granted a petitioner's application for modification of a prior visitation order concerning the parties' child. The unwed parties had a child in 1990, separated in 1991, and an order in March 1992 awarded custody to the petitioner with liberal visitation for the respondent father. Petitioner sought to limit weekday visitation, citing concerns from a mental health clinical evaluation. The court modified visitation, reducing the actual number of visitation days and clarifying the schedule, finding it to be in the child's best interest. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, finding that the mental health evaluation did not warrant further restriction and that the structured visitation schedule was supported by the record.

Family LawChild VisitationModification OrderBest Interest of ChildFamily Court ActMental Health EvaluationAppellate ReviewDelaware CountyCustody DisputeStructured Visitation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Justin J.

Petitioner initiated neglect proceedings under Family Ct Act article 10 against respondent Arnold J. and his wife, alleging inadequate supervision, failure to administer prescribed medication, excessive corporal punishment, and drug abuse in the presence of their six children. The children were subsequently removed from the home. The Family Court of Clinton County found respondent and his wife committed acts constituting neglect and violated preliminary orders. Respondent appealed both findings. The appellate court noted that the appeal concerning the violation of preliminary orders had been previously resolved. Focusing on the neglect finding, the court found ample evidence to support the Family Court's determination, including respondent's admissions to inadequate supervision, using excessive corporal punishment, and smoking marihuana while caring for the children. Further testimony from a friend, a physician, and a caseworker corroborated the neglect allegations, detailing drug use, suspected medication sales, and respondent's erratic behavior endangering the children. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the order finding neglect and dismissed the appeal from the order finding respondent in violation of prior orders.

Child NeglectFamily CourtParental RightsSubstance AbuseCorporal PunishmentInadequate SupervisionAppellate ReviewEvidenceCredibilityDomestic Violence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Commissioner of Social Services

The Commissioner of the Erie County Department of Social Services appealed an order by Family Court Judge John J. Honan. Judge Honan's order required the Commissioner to show cause why they should not be held in contempt and relieved of child protection responsibility, following an incident where a child in their custody was briefly abducted by her mother. The Commissioner's motion to vacate this show cause order was denied by the Family Court. On appeal, the higher court unanimously reversed the denial, finding no evidence of contempt against the Commissioner. The appellate court also clarified that Family Court lacks the authority to divest the Department of Social Services of its statutory responsibilities for child protection under the Social Services Law.

Child ProtectionSocial Services LawContempt of CourtShow Cause OrderJudicial AuthorityFamily Court JurisdictionAppellate ReviewChild AbductionFoster CareStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. ADJ7736993, ADJ8633868
Regular
Jul 29, 2016

HUGO IBARRA vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award. The applicant's argument focused on alleged errors in the WCJ's Opinion on Decision regarding advances, not the Findings and Award itself. The Board clarified that reconsideration is only available for final orders determining substantive rights or liabilities. Since the Findings and Award did not address advances or offsets, and no final order on that issue exists, the petition was denied. Any dispute regarding advances must first be litigated at the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardPermanent DisabilityDisability IndemnityAttorney's FeesOpinion on DecisionAdvancesOffsetsTrial Level
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 30,647 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