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 Mickie PP.

A designated felony act petition was filed against a 13-year-old respondent, alleging sodomy in the first degree at St. Cabrini Home in Ulster County. The Family Court found the respondent committed the acts, adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent, and ordered a three-year restrictive placement with the Division for Youth due to escalating behavior and threats. The respondent appealed the decision, arguing insufficient evidence and improper restrictive placement. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's findings, concluding that the victim's corroborated testimony provided sufficient evidence and the restrictive placement was a proper exercise of discretion.

Juvenile DelinquencyDesignated Felony ActSodomyRestrictive PlacementDivision for YouthFact-Finding HearingDispositional HearingPrima Facie CaseForcible CompulsionSexual Offense
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Christopher QQ.

This case involves an appeal from the Family Court of Chemung County regarding a juvenile delinquency adjudication and restrictive placement. The respondent, then 16, was found to be a juvenile delinquent after admitting to two counts of oral sexual conduct with young children he was babysitting. Family Court ordered a three-year restrictive placement due to the seriousness of the offenses and the need for deterrence and community protection. On appeal, the court affirmed both the denial of the respondent's motion to suppress his statements, noting that police were not required to contact parents for a 16-year-old, and the restrictive placement, emphasizing the respondent's abuse of trust, the negative impact on victims, and the findings of a social worker regarding his persistent sexual interest in children and lack of empathy.

Juvenile DelinquencyChild Sexual AbuseRestrictive PlacementFamily Court ActSuppression of EvidenceAppellate ReviewCriminal Sexual MisconductChild ProtectionJudicial DiscretionRisk of Reoffense
References
4
Case No. ADJ1438639 (GRO0024593) ADJ3262777 (GRO0025366)
Regular
Jul 06, 2011

DENNIS TIMMONS vs. CALIFORNIA MENS COLONY, STATE COMP. INS. FUND, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to reverse a prior award of Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits to the applicant, Dennis Timmons. The applicant sought SIBTF benefits based on a claimed pre-existing disability from a 1991 injury, arguing it imposed a prophylactic restriction from very heavy work that contributed to his 2000 industrial injury. However, the Board found no substantial medical evidence of a ratable pre-existing disability at the time of the 2000 injury, as prior medical reports indicated no residual disability and the applicant returned to work without restrictions. The Board concluded that a retroactive prophylactic restriction, without evidence of actual prior work limitations, is insufficient to establish SIBTF eligibility.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFpre-existing disabilityindustrial injurypermanent disabilityapportionmentAgreed Medical ExaminerAMEprophylactic restrictionWCJ
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Veronica S. v. Philip R.S.

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment in a divorce action. The defendant husband challenged the court's decision to award sole custody to the plaintiff wife, restrict his visitation, and require him to pay fees for the expert psychologist and Law Guardian. The Appellate Division affirmed the restricted visitation, citing the defendant's admission of sexual thoughts about children and expert testimony on his pedophilia, which supported the finding that restricted visitation was in the children's best interests. The court also found no error in the Law Guardian's conduct. However, the court modified the judgment regarding the Law Guardian's fees, ruling that they should be divided equally between the parties due to their comparable incomes and the absence of dilatory tactics by the defendant. The matter was remitted to Supreme Court for a determination of the fee allocation.

DivorceChild CustodyChild VisitationPedophiliaLaw Guardian FeesExpert Witness TestimonyAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionBest Interests of ChildrenParental Fitness
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2003

In re the Arbitration between Ayco Co. & Walton

This case involves cross appeals concerning the scope of an arbitration provision between Ayco Company, L.P. and Hambre, Inc. (petitioners) and a former attorney employee (respondent). The dispute arose when the respondent, after being fired, filed a civil complaint in California, prompting the petitioners to seek to compel arbitration in New York regarding alleged violations of a restrictive covenant. The Supreme Court initially ordered limited arbitration, interpreting an amendment to the partnership agreement as excluding restrictive covenant disputes from arbitration. However, the appellate court, applying the Federal Arbitration Act due to interstate commerce, determined that the broad arbitration clause encompassed all disputes, including those related to the restrictive covenant. Consequently, the appellate court modified the lower court's order to grant the petitioners' application to compel arbitration in its entirety in New York.

ArbitrationPartnership AgreementRestrictive CovenantEmployment DisputeFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Interstate CommerceContract InterpretationVenue DisputeAppellate ReviewCompel Arbitration
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. New York State

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against the New York Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation (State Parks) under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The dispute arose because New York amended its Civil Service Law in 1990 to apply age restrictions (21-29) to park patrol officers, a position previously exempt from such limits, effectively discriminating against applicants over 40. The EEOC argued this change violated the ADEA, as it expanded age restrictions beyond what was in place on March 3, 1983, and therefore did not fall under the ADEA's § 623(j) exception. The court, referencing similar cases, agreed with the EEOC's interpretation that the ADEA prevents the expansion of age restrictions to new categories of employees. Consequently, the court found State Parks liable, ruling that applying the new age requirements to park patrol officers violated the ADEA.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActEmployment DiscriminationPublic EmploymentLaw Enforcement OfficersPark Patrol OfficersNew York Civil Service LawStatutory InterpretationGrandfather Clause ExceptionFederal PreemptionState Law Amendments
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 1992

In re Nathan S.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Franklin County, which adjudicated a juvenile a delinquent for committing an act that would constitute third-degree burglary if committed by an adult. Following a dispositional hearing, the Family Court placed the juvenile in the custody of the Franklin County Commissioner of Social Services for 12 months, in a residential facility offering therapy, as recommended by a psychiatrist. The petitioner appealed on two grounds: first, that a less restrictive alternative (placement with parents) was not tried, and second, that the Law Guardian was granted unlimited direct access to information from the Department of Social Services case workers. The appellate court affirmed the placement decision, stating that the law does not require less restrictive alternatives to fail before more restrictive ones are imposed. However, the court modified the order by deleting the provision granting the Law Guardian unfettered access to Department records, finding insufficient factual basis for such broad access.

Juvenile DelinquencyFamily CourtDispositional HearingLeast Restrictive AlternativeChild WelfareCustody PlacementResidential FacilityPsychiatric EvaluationLaw Guardian AccessSocial Services Records
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waterson v. Plank Road Motel Corp.

Suzanne Waterson, a former employee of Best Western Inn, sued for sexual harassment and discriminatory termination. Defendants moved to bar testimony on compensatory and punitive damages and to restrict the testimony of another former employee, Anne Marie Malinowski. The court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which allows compensatory/punitive damages and jury trials for Title VII claims, was not retroactive to Waterson's alleged pre-1991 conduct. However, Waterson could seek compensatory damages and a jury trial under her supplemental New York State Human Rights Law claim, provided her state claim was dismissed for "administrative convenience." The court denied the motion to restrict Malinowski's testimony, finding it relevant to demonstrating a hostile work environment and discriminatory intent. Ultimately, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion regarding damages, allowing compensatory damages only for the state law claim, and denied the motion to restrict Malinowski's testimony.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1991RetroactivityCompensatory DamagesPunitive DamagesJury TrialState Law ClaimNew York State Human Rights Law
References
18
Case No. CV-23-0674
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Ronald Winkelman

Ronald Winkelman, a claimant in a workers' compensation case, sustained work-related injuries in 2000 and 2018. Following the 2018 injury, he received treatment and was assessed with a temporary partial disability, leading to lifting restrictions. After his employer could not accommodate these restrictions and terminated him, Winkelman secured per diem employment. The employer and its carrier alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, claiming Winkelman made false statements regarding his work activities while receiving benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board found no such violation, concluding that Winkelman's activities, including assisting his spouse, did not exceed his medical restrictions. The Board also determined that Winkelman was entitled to a reduced earnings award, finding he demonstrated attachment to the labor market. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and noting the Board's role as the sole arbiter of witness credibility.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraud AllegationReduced Earnings AwardTemporary Partial DisabilityIndependent Medical ExaminationBoard Decision AffirmationWitness CredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLabor Market Attachment
References
14
Case No. ADJ11017092
Regular
May 04, 2018

RICHARD CARL vs. DELTA PAINTING & COATING, INC., d/b/a TRU-TECH, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant denied further temporary disability benefits after rejecting a modified work offer. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration due to an illegible medical report relied upon by the judge, which prevented a determination of the work restrictions. The Board rescinded the original award and returned the case for further proceedings, potentially including obtaining a legible report from the physician who set the restrictions. This ensures due process and a proper adjudication of whether the work offer was appropriate.

Petition for ReconsiderationModified Work OfferTemporary Disability IndemnityEmployment RestrictionsBad FaithIllegible Medical ReportDevelop the RecordVocational RehabilitationIndustrial InjuryRight Knee
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 445 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