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 Baby Girl B.

This case involves a private placement adoption proceeding where the biological mother initially consented to the adoption of her child born on May 16, 1988. She later revoked her consent after her parents became aware of the birth. The unwed putative father also did not sign a consent. The biological parents alleged the mother's consent was invalid due to non-compliance with Domestic Relations Law § 115-b and was obtained by fraud and duress. They also claimed improper placement under Social Services Law § 374 (2) and § 371 (12). The court found the consent valid and freely given, and the child's placement compliant with the law, denying the motion to vacate consent and dismiss the adoption petition.

Private Placement AdoptionParental ConsentRevocation of ConsentFraud and DuressChild PlacementSocial Services LawDomestic Relations LawBest Interests of ChildSurrogate CourtNew York Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Male D.

The court addressed a motion by petitioning adoptive parents to dispense with the appearance of the child’s natural parents in a private-placement adoption proceeding. The motion was denied due to concerns regarding whether the natural parents' extrajudicial consents were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given. The court highlighted the absence of independent legal advice for the natural parents and the conflict of interest with the adoptive parents' attorney acknowledging consents. Furthermore, the court found non-compliance with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, as the child was brought from Connecticut to New York without proper approval. The petitioners were directed to obtain the natural parents' testimony and to seek Compact approval forthwith.

Private AdoptionParental ConsentDue ProcessInterstate CompactAdoption LawNew York LawConnecticut ResidentsLegal RepresentationConflict of InterestJudicial Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Female Infant K.

This case involves an application in a private placement adoption proceeding to designate a certified social worker, Mary Helen Evans, as a disinterested person to conduct the postplacement investigation as required by Domestic Relations Law § 116. Judge Edward M. Kaufmann denied the application, stating that Ms. Evans was not found by the court to be qualified for postplacement investigations, despite being statutorily qualified for preplacement investigations. The court emphasized the need for an impartial, unbiased, and independent investigator with uniform methodology, highlighting that the Family Court Probation Service is statutorily qualified by training and experience for postplacement investigations. Consequently, the Family Court Probation Service was ordered to conduct the investigation.

Adoption LawPostplacement InvestigationPreplacement InvestigationDisinterested PersonCertified Social WorkerFamily CourtProbation ServiceJudicial DiscretionChild WelfareStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Adoption of Anonymous (G.)

The case involves adoptive parents seeking court approval for a private-placement adoption of a one-year-old child from an unwed out-of-state mother. The child has been with the petitioners since eight days old. The natural mother provided irrevocable consent, and the New York City Department of Social Services recommended the adoption. The court considered dispensing with the natural mother's personal appearance but decided not to insist on it in this specific case due to the child's established placement and to avoid disservice to the infant. The decision establishes new rules for future private-placement adoptions, requiring detailed statements under oath from attorneys and adoptive parents regarding compensation and placement circumstances, to prevent adoptions driven by monetary considerations. The matter is calendared for further testimony.

AdoptionPrivate-Placement AdoptionParental RightsNatural MotherAdoptive ParentsBest Interest of ChildDomestic Relations LawSocial Services LawAttorney ConductEthical Guidelines
References
7
Case No. 12 Civ. 1669
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2015

FB v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiffs FB and EB, on behalf of their son LB, sued the New York City Department of Education under the IDEA. This case is an appeal of a State Review Officer's decision that had overturned an Impartial Hearing Officer's tuition reimbursement award for LB's private placement at the Rebecca School. The District Court found that the DOE denied LB a Free Appropriate Public Education due to procedural violations (denying parents meaningful participation in placement) and substantive violations (the proposed public school, P.S. 169, could not implement LB's IEP). The Court affirmed that the Rebecca School was an appropriate placement and that equitable factors favored the parents. The Court granted the parents' motion for summary judgment, denied the DOE's cross-motion, and ordered the DOE to reimburse the parents $92,100 for private tuition.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)Individualized Education Program (IEP)Tuition ReimbursementSpecial Education LawParental Participation RightsSchool Placement DisputesAutism Spectrum DisorderSensory Needs AccommodationSummary Judgment Ruling
References
38
Case No. 2016-08-0085
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2016

Humphreys, Jerry v. Prestigious Placement, Inc.

Jerry Humphreys, a fifty-year-old employee, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing against Prestigious Placement, Inc., his uninsured employer, seeking continued medical and temporary disability benefits for work-related neck and back injuries sustained on June 18, 2015. Humphreys reported the injury to Americraft supervisor and then Prestigious, receiving initial treatment and benefits until January 15, 2016, when benefits were terminated due to alleged refusal of light duty work and fabricated claims. The Court found Humphreys injured himself at work and that the employer's defenses lacked evidence, including their claim of willful misconduct or refusal of light duty work. Presiding Judge Jim Umsted ruled that Humphreys is entitled to continued medical treatment with his authorized treating physician, Dr. Murrell, and ongoing temporary partial disability benefits from January 16, 2016, forward. Additionally, the Court awarded Humphreys' attorney a fee of twenty percent of the temporary disability award.

Expedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityNeck InjuryBack InjuryCervical MyelopathyUninsured EmployerWork-Related AccidentSedentary Work RestrictionsAttorney's Fees
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Colin v. Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc.

The claimant, a for-hire driver, filed for workers' compensation benefits after an automobile accident, naming Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc. and Yolette Kernisan as employers. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the claimant was an independent contractor of Express. On appeal, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the finding that the claimant was not an employee of Yolette Kernisan and remitting the matter for further consideration regarding Kernisan's relationship with the claimant, citing an improper control standard. However, the court affirmed the Board's finding of no employment relationship with Express, supported by substantial evidence regarding drivers supplying their own vehicles and expenses, and ability to work for other companies.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorAutomobile AccidentRadio-Dispatched Car ServiceVehicle OwnershipControl TestRemittalAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06107 [243 AD3d 986]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2025

Matter of Dunkez Private Home Care, Inc. v. McDonald

The case involves Dunkez Private Home Care, Inc., a licensed home care services agency, challenging the Commissioner of Health's determination to revoke its license and impose a monetary penalty. The revocation stemmed from multiple deficiencies found during DOH surveys in 2019 and 2021, a substantiated patient complaint, and the agency's failure to comply with a temporary suspension order. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The Court also found the penalty, license revocation and a monetary fine, was not disproportionate or shocking to one's sense of fairness, considering the serious danger posed to vulnerable patients.

Home Care Services AgencyLicense RevocationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDepartment of HealthCPLR Article 78Monetary PenaltyTemporary Suspension OrderPatient Care Deficiencies
References
12
Case No. 13-06-575-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2008

Pokorne Private Capital Group, LLC v. 21st Mortgage Corp. & Nella Investments, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order granting no-evidence motions for summary judgment in favor of 21st Mortgage Corporation and Nella Investments, Inc., and denying a cross-motion by Pokorne Private Capital Group, LLC. The dispute centers on the priority of conflicting security interests in a manufactured home located in Williamson County. Pokorne argued that its purchase-money security interest had priority once the home was declared real property. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that 21st Mortgage had a perfected security interest in the home, which was recorded chronologically before Pokorne's, and that Sedona's real property election filing was defective. The court also found that 21st Mortgage was entitled to self-help repossession as the senior lienholder.

manufactured homessecurity interestsinventory lienpurchase-money security interestsummary judgmentTexas lawreal propertypersonal propertyrepossessionUCC
References
27
Case No. W2014-02286-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2016

Kim Hardy v. Tournament Players Club at Southwind, Inc., d/b/a TPC Southwind,

The Tennessee Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal to determine if an employee has a private right of action against an employer under the Tennessee Tip Statute (Tenn. Code Ann. section 50-2-107) for improper tip payment. The trial court initially dismissed the employee's claim, finding no such private right. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, relying on its prior 1998 holding in *Owens v. University Club of Memphis*. The Supreme Court found that the *Owens* decision was inconsistent with its subsequent jurisprudence on implying private rights of action, particularly in *Brown* and *Premium Finance*. Consequently, the Court declined to apply the doctrine of legislative inaction and held that no private right of action exists under section 50-2-107. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and affirmed the trial court's dismissal.

Private Right of ActionTennessee Tip StatuteWage RegulationEmployee CompensationImplied Cause of ActionLegislative InactionStatutory InterpretationClass ActionMotion to DismissAppellate Review
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 815 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