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 Jeanne TT.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County that adjudicated the respondent a person in need of supervision (PINS) and placed her in the custody of the petitioner for 18 months. The PINS adjudication stemmed from the respondent absconding from treatment facilities on three occasions after being removed from her mother's home due to a prior neglect proceeding. The respondent argued that the Family Court abused its discretion by not substituting a neglect petition for the PINS petition and that testimony from social workers violated client-social worker privilege. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion, noting the respondent's behavior was not attributable to parental abuse and occurred while she was in residential treatment. It also ruled that the client-social worker privilege did not apply to the evidence presented, as the communications were not made to a certified social worker or intended to be confidential. Finally, the court affirmed the dispositional order, finding placement necessary given the respondent's history of incorrigible behavior and her mother's surrender of parental rights.

Family Court ActPINS proceedingPerson in Need of SupervisionClient-social worker privilegeCPLR 4508AbscondingPlacement orderAdjournment in contemplation of dismissalNeglect proceedingParental rights surrender
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Falcon EE.

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order that adjudicated Falcon EE. as an abused child and Monica UU. as a neglected child by their respondent father/step-father. The initial proceedings stemmed from Falcon EE. sustaining multiple severe injuries, including an oblique femur fracture, head and chest bruises, and vaginal lacerations, which the respondent attributed to an accidental fall. However, medical testimony refuted the accidental cause, indicating sexual abuse and non-accidental trauma, and also noted prior injuries sustained by Falcon while in the respondent's care. The Family Court found Falcon abused by the respondent and Monica derivatively neglected, based on the respondent's conduct towards Falcon creating a substantial risk of harm to any child in his care. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's determinations, finding sufficient evidence supported the findings of abuse and neglect.

References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sutherland v. City of New York

Norrel Sutherland, a dock builder, was injured on a job site while operating a defective winch motor for Pile Foundation Construction Co., Inc., his employer. He subsequently filed actions against the City of New York, its departments, Ingersoll-Rand Company, and Pile Foundation, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law, Jones Act, and LHWCA. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against Pile under LHWCA and Jones Act, and some Labor Law claims against the City, but denied dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim against the City. Upon reargument, the court adhered to its prior determinations. Sutherland and the City appealed. This appellate court dismisses several appeals and cross-appeals, upholds the dismissal of Jones Act and Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 (6) claims, and modifies the prior order to grant summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim against the City. The court extensively discusses the "dual capacity" employer liability under LHWCA, affirming that Pile's alleged negligence related to employer functions, not vessel owner functions, thus granting Pile immunity. The final decision is to modify and affirm the prior orders.

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActJones Act ClaimsLabor Law ClaimsDual Capacity DoctrineVessel Owner NegligenceEmployer ImmunitySummary Judgment AppealConstruction Site SafetyDefective EquipmentMaritime Worker Injury
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ronald M.

The Erie County Department of Social Services (DSS) obtained temporary custody of Ronald M., Jr. based on a neglect petition alleging the mother's mental illness and substance abuse, and a prior neglect adjudication for an older sibling. At trial, the evidence from a child protective worker, a psychiatrist, and a nurse was deemed insufficient to prove current neglect. The Family Court granted the respondents' motions to dismiss. On appeal, DSS solely relied on the principle that prior neglect of one child is admissible to prove neglect of another, but the appellate court found this insufficient to sustain a neglect finding given the 16-month gap since the prior order and a lack of proof of non-compliance or new concerning behavior by the parents. The order dismissing the neglect petition was unanimously affirmed.

Child NeglectFamily LawAppellate CourtSufficiency of EvidencePrior AdjudicationParental FitnessChild Protective ServicesDomestic ViolenceMental Health IssuesSubstance Abuse History
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Wilinston BB

This appeal stems from a Family Court order in Albany County, adjudicating the respondent a juvenile delinquent. The respondent contested the Family Court's decision not to suppress his written confession, arguing it was involuntarily made. The appellate court, however, affirmed the Family Court's ruling, finding no evidence of coercion during police questioning and noting the appropriate handling of the respondent's mother's presence. While acknowledging certain evidentiary errors by the Family Court, the appellate panel deemed them harmless given the overwhelming evidence of the respondent's guilt. Consequently, the original order of juvenile delinquency adjudication was affirmed.

juvenile delinquencyconfessionsuppression of evidenceinvoluntary confessionFamily Court Actevidentiary rulingsharmless errorrape first degreesodomy first degreepolice questioning
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jeffrey D.

Petitioner filed a petition under Family Court Act article 10, alleging child abuse and neglect of respondents' three-month-old son, Jeffrey. Initial allegations involved scalding and bruises, later supplemented with claims of numerous fractured ribs following further medical examinations. The Family Court found no abuse but adjudicated the child neglected. The mother appealed, but the Appellate Court rejected the mootness argument, citing the permanent stigma of a neglect adjudication. Based on expert medical testimony from Dr. Louise Godine, who identified nine fractured ribs indicative of forceful squeezing and determined the injuries predated the scalding, the Appellate Court affirmed the Family Court's finding. The court noted the parents' failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the injuries, allowing for strong adverse inferences.

Child Neglect AdjudicationFamily Court Act Article 10Infant Rib FracturesScalding InjuriesMedical Expert TestimonyPreponderance of Evidence StandardMootness Doctrine ApplicationParental Explanations DiscreditedAdverse InferencesAppellate Affirmation
References
9
Case No. ADJ2534727 (OAK 0298436)
Regular
Apr 12, 2013

GLENDA HAMMONDS vs. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, JT2 INTEGRATED RESOURCES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case for further proceedings. The WCAB found the record deficient, noting that exhibits necessary for a fair adjudication were not properly admitted into evidence. The WCAB clarified that apportionment should only consider the disability increase after a prior stipulation. A new decision from the WCJ is required after the record is properly completed.

ADJ2534727Permanent DisabilityReconsiderationApportionmentIndustrial InjuryBilateral KneesAgreed Medical ExaminerPetition to ReopenAdmitted EvidenceRecord Deficiencies
References
4
Case No. ADJ4196699 (SDO 0299468) ADJ3821411 (SDO 0299470)
Regular
Jan 07, 2013

JOHN YOUNTS vs. HANSON AGGREGATES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, Through Its Servicing Facility SEDGWICK CMS, for FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns CIGA's (California Insurance Guarantee Association) indemnity petition against Zurich. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted CIGA's reconsideration request, finding the prior denial of its indemnity petition was erroneous. The WCAB clarified that CIGA's right to indemnity had not been adjudicated in previous proceedings and rescinded the prior order. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on CIGA's indemnity petition.

CIGAFremont Compensation Insurance CompanyZurich American Insurance CompanyindemnityreconsiderationPetition for IndemnityFindings and AwardCompromise and Releasecumulative injuryspecific injury
References
5
Case No. ADJ7226528, ADJ7225444, ADJ7226547, ADJ7271889
Regular
May 17, 2012

CORPORATE OF CALIFORNIA vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Legally Uninsured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior finding that an applicant sustained a conclusively presumed permanent total disability with no apportionment. The WCAB dismissed the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding the prior order was subject to reconsideration. The Board determined there was no good cause to bifurcate the issue of Labor Code section 4662 from other permanent disability and apportionment issues. The case was returned to the trial level for comprehensive adjudication of all matters.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationFinding of FactConclusively Presumed Permanent Total DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 4662BifurcationMinutes of HearingIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. LBO 0383944
Regular
Apr 07, 2008

GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ vs. GARDENA NISSAN, SENTRY CLAIMS SERVICE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding the prior order was procedural and not final. However, the WCAB granted removal, rescinded the prior order, and authorized the defendant to obtain a second orthopedic QME. This decision was based on the necessity of obtaining crucial medical evidence regarding the applicant's orthopedic condition, which the current internal medicine QME could not address, thus preventing a just adjudication.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting RemovalDecision After RemovalSpecialty Physician Panel QMEOrthopedicsMedical UnitLabor Code section 4062.2Industrial InjuryLeft Shoulder
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 8,709 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