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

Doe Ex Rel. Hickey v. Jefferson County

Plaintiff John Doe, a seven-year-old child in the custody of the Jefferson County Department of Social Services (JCDSS), alleges he suffered severe physical and mental abuse while in foster care. He brings a negligence claim against defendant Sandra Walsemann, a certified social worker and his therapist at the Watertown Collaborative Day Treatment Program. Doe claims Walsemann failed to provide adequate psychological assessment and treatment, properly report the alleged child abuse, and recommend his removal from the foster home. Walsemann moved to dismiss the amended complaint on grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity, failure to state a claim for negligence, and qualified immunity. The Court denied Walsemann's motion in its entirety, finding that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar a suit against her in her personal capacity, the allegations are sufficient to state a claim for negligence, and she is not entitled to qualified immunity.

NegligenceChild AbuseFoster CareSocial Worker LiabilityQualified ImmunityEleventh AmendmentSubject Matter JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionMotion to DismissNew York Social Services Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2011

In re the Certification as Qualified Adoptive Parents Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 115-d

This case concerns Joanna K. and Scottye K.'s application to waive the mandatory certification as qualified adoptive parents for Jeremiah B., the biological son of Careese B. The K.s received physical custody of Jeremiah shortly after his birth in March 2009, prior to obtaining the required judicial certification, thereby violating New York's adoption statute. The court reviewed the convoluted history, including Careese B.'s judicial consent to adoption and the K.s' temporary custody order. However, the court denied the waiver application, emphasizing the critical importance of pre-placement certification to protect children and prevent unregulated transfers of custody. The decision stated that the petitioners failed to show good cause for waiver and that a retroactive approval of non-compliance would undermine legislative intent, although the K.s retain legal and physical custody pending the adoption petition.

Adoption Law CompliancePrivate-Placement Adoption RequirementsPre-Placement CertificationWaiver Application DenialChild Welfare LegislationFamily Law ProcedureJudicial DiscretionStatutory InterpretationParental Fitness StandardsCustody Transfer
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workforce Commission v. Olivas

Ms. Maria Elena Olivas, a former employee of the Texas Workforce Commission, filed a workers' compensation claim after developing injuries in March 2008. She was subsequently dismissed from employment in May 2009, leading her to file a suit against the Commission for retaliatory discharge. The Commission filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity and arguing that Section 311.034 of the Texas Government Code mandated an unequivocal waiver of immunity, which it claimed was absent in the anti-retaliation provisions of Chapter 451. The trial court denied the Commission's plea. On appeal, the Commission contended that Section 311.034 abrogated existing Texas Supreme Court precedent (*Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez*) that recognized a waiver of sovereign immunity for such claims against state agencies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that the State Applications Act (SAA) still provides a clear and unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity for retaliation claims against state agencies, and that neither Section 311.034 nor the *Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman* decision altered this established legal analysis.

Sovereign ImmunityRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewGovernment CodeLabor CodeLegislative WaiverState AgenciesStatutory Construction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. Headly

Plaintiff Carter Howard, an inmate, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against prison officials Headly, Crum, and Fiegl-Bock, alleging violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Howard claimed he was forced to perform strenuous work beyond his physical capabilities despite medical restrictions and repeated complaints, leading to further injuries. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and on qualified immunity grounds. The Court denied the motion, finding that Howard sufficiently alleged an Eighth Amendment claim based on deliberate indifference to his serious medical condition and that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

Civil RightsInmate RightsEighth AmendmentCruel and Unusual PunishmentDeliberate IndifferencePrison ConditionsMedical RestrictionsQualified ImmunityMotion to DismissPleading Standards
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Iacampo v. State

This case concerns an appeal from a Court of Claims judgment finding the State of New York 70% responsible for injuries sustained by Luca Iacampo while employed by Santaro Industries, Inc. Iacampo and his employer were each found 15% responsible. The State appealed, challenging findings of common-law negligence, Labor Law violations, denial of qualified immunity, and the allocation of liability. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, confirming that the State had notice of unsafe work practices and the authority to control them, thus failing to provide a safe workplace. The court also upheld the apportionment of liability, finding the prior ruling reasonable and rejecting the State's contentions regarding Iacampo's sole negligence and qualified immunity.

NegligenceLabor LawWorkplace SafetyApportionment of LiabilityQualified ImmunityCommon-Law NegligenceCourt of ClaimsAppellate ReviewHighway ProjectIndustrial Code
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harley Ex Rel. Johnson v. City of New York

Plaintiff Lucille Harley brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of her grandchildren, alleging a violation of their due process rights in connection with their removal from her home in 1990. Defendants, including child welfare caseworkers Kersandra Cox and John Byers, moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity and challenging municipal liability. The court found that the caseworkers were objectively reasonable in their belief of emergency circumstances warranting removal, thereby granting them qualified immunity. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of a municipal policy of 'deliberate indifference,' leading to the dismissal of claims against the City. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety.

Civil RightsDue ProcessChild RemovalFoster CareQualified ImmunityMunicipal LiabilitySummary JudgmentChild Abuse AllegationsFamily LawFederal Court
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2011

Mangino v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue

This case involves a motion for reconsideration filed by the Incorporated Village of Patchogue, Fire Marshall John P. Poulos, and Code Enforcement Officer James Nudo, challenging a prior Memorandum and Order. The Court grants the motion for reconsideration regarding the malicious abuse of process claim, finding defendant Nudo is entitled to qualified immunity because the legal landscape concerning probable cause as a complete defense was not clearly established. However, the Court denies the motion for reconsideration of the Fourth Amendment claim, reaffirming that sufficient factual disputes exist regarding plaintiffs' standing, the presence of exigent circumstances, and Poulos's potential liability for fabricating an exigency, which precludes summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Qualified ImmunityMalicious Abuse of ProcessFourth AmendmentWarrantless EntryExigent CircumstancesProbable CauseReconsideration MotionDistrict CourtSummary JudgmentCivil Rights
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. WOLBACH

Robert Rodriguez filed a Bivens action against DEA Special Agent Robert John Wolbach, alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment rights through false arrest and imprisonment. Rodriguez claimed he was arrested without probable cause or pursuant to a facially invalid warrant for drug trafficking offenses. Wolbach moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court determined that Special Agent Balcom had probable cause to arrest Rodriguez, despite an eventual misidentification, and Wolbach was entitled to rely on Balcom's information. The court further found that it was objectively reasonable for Wolbach to believe the warrant was facially valid, even though its true validity was unclear. Consequently, the court granted Wolbach's motion for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity.

Fourth AmendmentQualified ImmunityFalse ArrestFalse ImprisonmentSummary JudgmentProbable CauseArrest WarrantDEA AgentBivens ActionConstitutional Rights
References
51
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07288 [211 AD3d 1408]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2022

Mahoney v. City of Albany

Plaintiff Dawn Mahoney, a former civilian dispatcher, filed a lawsuit against the City of Albany and individual supervisors, alleging hostile work environment and retaliation under federal civil rights law and the Human Rights Law. Her claims stemmed from alleged sexual harassment by a coworker, John Tierney, and subsequent actions by supervisors. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment for the individual defendants on the hostile work environment claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the decision, granting summary judgment and dismissing the federal and state claims against supervisors Mark Seymour, Kenneth Marks, and Joseph Carnevali based on qualified immunity. However, the hostile work environment claims against John Tierney were not dismissed, as questions of fact remained regarding his conduct and qualified immunity.

Hostile Work EnvironmentSexual HarassmentQualified ImmunitySummary Judgment42 USC § 1983Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationSupervisory LiabilityAppellate ReviewEqual Protection Clause
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. McClenning

Israel Rodriguez, an inmate at Green Haven Correctional Facility, sued corrections officer Daniel McClenning under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Rodriguez claimed McClenning sexually assaulted him during a pat-frisk and retaliated against him for filing a grievance. McClenning moved for summary judgment, arguing the sexual assault claim lacked constitutional merit or was protected by qualified immunity, and that the retaliation claim lacked evidence of improper motive. The court denied McClenning's motion, concluding that sexual assault of an inmate by a prison officer violates contemporary Eighth Amendment standards and that qualified immunity does not apply to such conduct. Additionally, the court found sufficient circumstantial evidence of retaliatory motive regarding the misbehavior report to deny summary judgment on the retaliation claim.

Prisoner RightsEighth AmendmentCruel and Unusual PunishmentSexual AssaultQualified ImmunityFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentRetaliationCorrectional FacilitySummary Judgment
References
54
Showing 1-10 of 2,608 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