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

Washington Heights—West Harlem—Inwood Mental Health Council, Inc. v. District 1199, National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees, RWDSU

This District Court opinion addresses motions by the Washington Heights Mental Health Council to amend its complaint and by District 1199 to enforce an arbitration award. Previously, the court vacated an award reinstating Edward Lane with back pay, but the Second Circuit reversed and remanded. The court now finds an oral collective bargaining agreement existed, generally requiring enforcement of the arbitration award. However, new serious allegations against Lane, if proven, could justify discharge. A strong public policy against reinstating a mental health worker accused of sexually molesting patients warrants staying his reinstatement pending arbitration of these new claims. Despite this, the court orders the Council to comply with the back pay portion of the arbitration award, finding no public policy violation in that aspect.

Arbitration Award EnforcementCollective Bargaining AgreementBack PayReinstatement StayedSexual Misconduct AllegationsPublic Policy ExceptionLabor DisputeAmended ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRemand Order
References
11
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2015

Matter of Ruth Joanna O.O. (Melissa O.)

Justice Gesmer dissents from the affirmation of a Family Court order finding Melissa O. neglected her child. The dissent argues that the Family Court lacked a basis for its neglect finding, as there was no evidence that the mother's conduct impaired or threatened her child's condition. Furthermore, it asserts that the findings regarding the mother's failure to take medication or engage in mental health services were unsupported by admissible evidence. Gesmer, J. emphasizes that proof of mental illness alone is insufficient for a neglect finding without a causal link to actual or potential harm to the child. The dissent concludes that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the mother's mental illness resulted in a failure to provide a minimum degree of care or that the child was harmed or at imminent risk of harm.

Child Protective ProceedingNeglect FindingParental Mental IllnessSufficiency of EvidenceImminent Risk of HarmMinimum Degree of CareFamily Court ActDissenting OpinionAdmissibility of EvidenceCausal Connection
References
15
Case No. ADJ6532010
Regular
Oct 20, 2010

JONI LITTLE vs. ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP INC.

The defendant sought reconsideration of an order that reinstated a lien claimant's dismissed lien, arguing the lien claimant's petition was untimely. The Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petition, finding the order reinstating the lien was not a final order as it did not substantively determine liability. The Board also denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no showing of irreparable harm or prejudice justifying this extraordinary remedy. The lien claimant will still need to prove their case on the merits, and the defendant can present their arguments at further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardreconsiderationremovallien claimantadministrative law judgeCompromise and ReleaseNotice of Intentrescinded orderfinal ordersubstantive right
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2009

In re Jessica L.

This case concerns an appeal by a father against a finding of neglect regarding his two children. The children resided with their mother, who had a history of drug use. The father, suspecting the mother was currently using drugs, anonymously contacted the Administration for Children's Services (ACS). Although the mother subsequently tested positive for cocaine, the appellate court reversed the Family Court's neglect finding against the father. The court determined that the father's actions, including his proactive call to ACS, met the minimum degree of care required and did not constitute neglect, thereby vacating the finding and dismissing the petition against him.

Family LawChild NeglectParental RightsAppellate ReviewFamily CourtSubstance AbuseDrug TestingACS InterventionMinimum Degree of CareReversal of Finding
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ziehm v. City of Buffalo

Linda Ziehm, an absentee investigator for the City of Buffalo, was terminated in 1979 for violating a residency ordinance, despite claiming exemption under a collective bargaining agreement based on her residency status before January 1, 1977. Although a hearing officer recommended her reinstatement, the commissioner rejected this, finding she was a city resident until June 1979. The Supreme Court annulled the commissioner's determination, ordering Ziehm's reinstatement with back pay. However, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, dismissed Ziehm's petition, and confirmed the commissioner's initial determination. The appellate decision concluded that substantial evidence in the record supported the commissioner's finding that Ziehm did not qualify for the residency exemption.

Residency ordinanceEmployment terminationCollective bargaining agreementDomicileAdministrative determinationSubstantial evidenceCPLR Article 78Appellate reviewCity employeesExemptions
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Buy Buy Baby, Inc.

Plaintiff Erika Flores was fired by defendant Buy Buy Baby, Inc. on December 31, 1998, and filed suit alleging pregnancy discrimination in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and New York State Human Rights Law. Flores claims her supervisor's demeanor changed after disclosing her pregnancy and that her termination was discriminatory, despite no prior warnings. The defendant argued the termination was due to absenteeism and poor performance. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that Flores presented sufficient evidence to create a material issue of fact regarding pretext. The court also denied the defendant's motion to strike claims for reinstatement and front pay, citing outstanding issues regarding the applicability of after-acquired evidence.

Pregnancy Discrimination ActTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationPretextPrima Facie CaseAfter-Acquired EvidenceReinstatementFront Pay
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hobbs v. Lavine

Petitioner's home relief assistance was discontinued by the New York City Department of Social Services based on a finding that she was fully employed. This determination was affirmed by the respondent after a hearing. The court found that the respondent's determination was not supported by substantial evidence, as the city agency's evidence consisted only of two vague case-record entries. Consequently, the application was granted, and the determination was annulled, with petitioner's assistance directed to be reinstated retroactively.

Home ReliefPublic AssistanceSocial ServicesEmployment StatusSubstantial EvidenceArticle 78 CPLRAdministrative ReviewRetroactive BenefitsDiscontinuation of Benefits
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arana v. Constantine

Petitioner, a railroad police officer, was terminated by Metro-North after a positive drug test for cocaine and subsequent revocation of his police commission by the Superintendent of the State Police. Despite an arbitration board ordering his reinstatement pending a negative retest, which he passed, the Superintendent refused to reinstate his commission based on an independent finding of poor moral character. Petitioner filed a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging this denial. The Supreme Court dismissed his application, a decision which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. The Appellate Division held that the Superintendent has broad discretion in determining the moral character of police officer applicants and that judicial review is limited to arbitrariness or irrationality, finding sufficient support for the Superintendent's decision. The Court also clarified that disputes regarding the penalty of dismissal under the collective bargaining agreement fall under the Railway Labor Act's arbitration procedures, not judicial review.

Railroad PoliceDrug TestingCocaine MetabolitePolice CommissionMoral CharacterAdministrative DiscretionJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Railway Labor ActArbitration
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 16,268 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