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

Flynn-Stallmer v. Stallmer

Petitioner Susannah Flynn-Stallmer appealed three orders: two from Family Court concerning child custody awarded to respondent Timothy J. Stallmer, and one from Supreme Court denying her motion to vacate the Family Court order on grounds of judicial recusal. Family Court awarded custody to the father, Timothy J. Stallmer, finding it in the children's best interest after weighing various factors including the parents' stability, work records, and the father's supportive extended family, while also considering the mother's inconsistencies and extramarital relationship. The appeals court affirmed Family Court's custody decision, finding it supported by the record and that the court did not improperly rely on matters outside the record or err in denying the mother's motion to present additional testimony. Finally, the Supreme Court's denial of the mother's application to set aside the custody order due to alleged judicial disqualification was affirmed, as the court found no familial relationship between the Family Court Judge and the respondent that would mandate recusal under Judiciary Law § 14, and the Judge's disclosure of a tenuous past tie did not reflect bias.

Child CustodyJudicial RecusalFamily LawBest Interests of the ChildAppellate ReviewDiscretionCredibilityParental StabilityFamily Court Act Article 6CPLR 4404(b)
References
6
Case No. ADJ1775896 (RDG 0101688), ADJ2010679 (RDG 0104042)
Regular
Nov 28, 2012

RICHARD SEILER vs. CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant, Richard Seiler, petitioned to recuse the judge, alleging prejudice and improper rulings on evidence and medical treatment requests. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the applicant's filings and the judge's report. The WCAB denied the disqualification petition, finding no evidence of bias. The applicant will have the opportunity to raise these issues at trial and, if necessary, file a petition for reconsideration.

Recusal petitionJudge JonesLabor Code section 5311WCAB Rule 10452Chiropractic QMEExclusion of evidencePrescribing physicianHormone replacementMandatory settlement conferencePetition for reconsideration
References
0
Case No. 69 Civ. 200 (DNE)
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. International Business MacHines Corp.

This memorandum addresses International Business Machines Corporation's (IBM) request for Judge David N. Edelstein to recuse himself from further proceedings in U. S. v. IBM. IBM filed an affidavit alleging the judge had personal bias and prejudice, and that the court lacked jurisdiction following a stipulation of dismissal on January 8, 1982. The court asserts its jurisdiction to determine its own authority, citing precedent. The memorandum concludes that IBM's recusal request is without merit, citing reasons such as it being a second such affidavit in the case, its untimeliness, and the failure to demonstrate an extrajudicial bias. Consequently, the request for recusal is denied.

Recusal MotionJudicial BiasJurisdiction DisputeTunney Act ApplicabilityAntitrust ProceduresStipulation of DismissalAmicus Curiae InterventionTimeliness of MotionCode of Judicial ConductFederal Procedure
References
12
Case No. 90-CV-641
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1993

Verone v. Taconic Telephone Corp.

Chief Judge McAvoy presided over an order regarding motions for recusal and contempt in case 90-CV-641. Plaintiff Thomas A. Verone sought the recusal of the judge and to hold his attorney, Paul A. Moore, in contempt for failing to comply with prior orders concerning sanction payments. The court denied the recusal motion, finding no sufficient basis for disqualification. However, the court found clear and convincing evidence of Paul A. Moore's noncompliance, granting the contempt motion. Moore was ordered to pay Thomas A. Verone $6,980.00 within thirty days, with the provision for his arrest and confinement by the United States Marshal if he failed to comply.

Civil ContemptAttorney SanctionsRecusal MotionRule 11 SanctionsPayment DefaultJudicial OrdersNoncomplianceConditional ArrestLegal EthicsJudicial Integrity
References
11
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00527
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2023

Matter of Indigo S. (Rajea S.T.)

This case involves an appeal from an intermediate order of the Family Court, Genesee County, which denied the petitioner's (Genesee County Department of Social Services) motion seeking recusal of the Acting Family Court Judge. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Family Court's order without costs. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying the recusal motion, noting that the judge's knowledge of negative treatment stemmed from a report received during the judicial proceeding and immediately shared with all parties. The court also determined that despite some intemperate remarks, no bias unjustly affected the outcome, and issues related to visitation were not properly before them on this appeal from an intermediate order.

Recusal MotionJudicial DisqualificationFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionIntermediate OrderChild WelfareFamily LawGenesee County Family CourtAppellate Division Fourth Department
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farkas v. Ellis

The court addressed the plaintiffs' motion for recusal of Judge William C. Conner, based on allegations of bias and prejudice. Plaintiffs cited judicial acts and statements, as well as a perceived 'working relationship' between the judge and the Administrator, Mr. Ellis. The Court denied the recusal motion, stating that the alleged bias did not stem from an extrajudicial source, which is a requirement for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455(b)(1). The Court also clarified that even under the objective 'reasonable person' standard of 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), no appearance of partiality was established. Furthermore, the Court raised concerns regarding subject matter jurisdiction, ordering plaintiffs to show cause why the action should not be dismissed, as the Administrator, Mr. Ellis, is not an 'agency' under the cited statutes (5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 706) for judicial review of agency actions.

Recusal MotionJudicial BiasExtrajudicial Source of BiasSubject Matter JurisdictionAgency Action ReviewConsent Decree Administrator28 U.S.C. 14428 U.S.C. 4555 U.S.C. 7025 U.S.C. 706
References
16
Case No. 263 AD2d 686
Regular Panel Decision

Cicardi v. Cicardi

Petitioner Cicardi appealed two Family Court orders from Albany County, entered August 7, 1997, which dismissed his application for modification of a prior child support order and found him in arrears of approximately $19,600. The original 1994 order required petitioner to pay $150 per week. Cicardi sought to vacate arrearages and support obligations, claiming permanent disability due to a workers' compensation claim, but failed to provide competent medical evidence of a change in circumstances. The Family Court denied his requests for recusal of the judge and assignment of counsel, and precluded certain evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's orders, finding no error in the lower court's decisions regarding counsel, recusal, evidence preclusion, or the finding that Cicardi did not meet his burden of proving a substantial change in financial circumstances to warrant a downward modification, especially given his lack of effort to retrain.

Family LawChild SupportSupport ModificationArrearagesDisability ClaimChange in CircumstancesRecusal MotionAssignment of CounselPro Se LitigantEvidence Preclusion
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seife v. National Institutes of Health

Plaintiff Charles Seife, acting pro se, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to obtain records concerning "special governmental employees" (SGEs) who serve on NIH advisory panels. Seife specifically requested documents from the ethics files of 44 NIH SGEs related to managing conflicts of interest, including "recusal lists" and "waiver determinations." NIH produced partially redacted documents, withholding information based on FOIA Exemptions 3 and 6, which protect confidential financial disclosure reports and personal privacy. The court granted Seife's motion in part, ordering NIH to release unredacted waiver determinations concerning SGEs' financial interests and relationships, but allowed redaction of identifying information about spouses or dependent children, and upheld the withholding of recusal lists. The decision balanced the SGEs' privacy interests against the public's interest in government transparency and accountability regarding potential conflicts of interest.

FOIANational Institutes of HealthSpecial Governmental EmployeesConflict of InterestRecusal ListsWaiver DeterminationsEthics in Government ActFinancial DisclosurePrivacy InterestsGovernment Transparency
References
35
Case No. ADJ7825518
Regular
Nov 05, 2013

MICHELLE WELLS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order changes the venue for Michelle Wells' case from the Eureka District Office to the Sacramento District Office. The transfer is necessary because the Presiding Judge in Eureka has recused herself and there are no other judges available there. The order also directs the Sacramento Presiding Judge to assign the case to a judge who has no prior working relationship with the applicant.

WCABLegally UninsuredAdjusting AgencyOrder Changing VenuePresiding Workers' Compensation JudgeRecusedAppeals Board Rule 10453Sacramento District OfficeAssignmentApplicant
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jungels v. Buffalo

The court addressed a motion filed for the reargument of an earlier motion for leave to appeal. This request for reargument was subsequently denied by the court. It was specifically noted in the decision that Judge Rivera did not participate in the deliberation or ruling on this particular matter, indicating a recusal or non-involvement in the proceedings. The original motion for leave to appeal was referenced as 20 NY3d 915 (2012).

Motion for reargumentLeave to appealMotion practiceProcedural denialJudicial recusalAppellate procedureCourt of AppealsNew York law
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 27 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