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. 2018 NY Slip Op 01069 [158 AD3d 703]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2018

Matter of Bella S. (Sarah S.)

The case "Matter of Bella S. (Sarah S.)" involves an appeal from a Family Court order that found Sarah S. (mother) neglected her child, Bella S. The Administration for Children's Services had petitioned, alleging the mother's untreated bipolar disorder and other mental illnesses put the child at risk. The Family Court agreed, but the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this finding. The Appellate Division concluded that the petitioner failed to prove inadequate treatment or imminent harm, noting the mother's consistent efforts in seeking housing, prenatal care, methadone treatment, and psychiatric medication. Consequently, the petition against the mother was denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

Child NeglectParental RightsMental IllnessBipolar DisorderAdequate TreatmentAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofImminent DangerFamily Court ActKings County
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Timmy S.

Judge O'Connor concurs, focusing on whether natural parents Christine and Warren K. abandoned or forfeited their parental rights to their Down's Syndrome baby, Sarah. The Family Court found the K.s' belief that their extrajudicial consent was tentative to be plausible, induced by misleading forms and procedures from the adoption bureau of Suffolk County Family Court. The judge highlights that the extrajudicial consent form, based on Domestic Relations Law § 115-b, was flawed due to the omission of a modifying word ("this" or "the"), which led the K.s to believe they could revoke consent before a court appearance. This deception and lack of proper notice, according to O'Connor, deprived the K.s of due process, rendering their consent a nullity. The opinion recommends restoring Sarah to her natural parents and calls for legislative attention to the statute's defects regarding notice.

Parental RightsAdoptionExtrajudicial ConsentDue ProcessDomestic Relations LawSuffolk CountyFamily LawConstitutional LawRevocation of ConsentMisleading Forms
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laici v. Baldwin

This case involves a custody dispute between a petitioner mother and respondent father concerning their two children, Jacob and Sarah. The couple separated in 1982, and custody was temporarily placed with the Department of Social Services in 1984. Petitioner sought sole custody in 1986, supported by social workers, a psychologist, and the Law Guardian who cited her efforts to improve her life and ability to meet the children's emotional needs. Conversely, the respondent father largely remained unemployed and refused psychological testing. The court initially awarded custody to the respondent, emphasizing his current wife's stable living arrangement. The dissenting judges argue this decision erroneously prioritized the father's *derived* stability over the mother's demonstrated efforts and capacity for the children's emotional development, advocating for a reversal and award of custody to the petitioner mother based on overwhelming expert testimony.

custody disputeparental rightschild welfarebest interests of the childdissenting opinionfamily lawpsychological evaluationparental stabilitydomestic abuseappellate review
References
3
Case No. ADJ3445477
Regular
Jan 16, 2009

Deborah Newell vs. Ford Construction Company

The WCJ found that Dennis Newell's death was caused by Ford's failure to provide a safe workplace. Both the applicant and Ford sought reconsideration, which was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and Willful MisconductLabor Code sections 6400 et seq8 Cal. Code Regs. 50428 Cal. Code Regs. 5002ForemanIndustrial InjuryDeath BenefitSafe Place to WorkExecutive Knowledge
References
3
Case No. ADJ6916816
Regular
Feb 05, 2013

SARAH HOAGLAND vs. COUNTY OF YUBA

This case concerns a workers' compensation applicant, Sarah Hoagland, who was ordered to produce business records and tax returns. The Appeals Board granted her Petition for Removal, ruling that her tax returns are privileged and cannot be compelled. However, Hoagland must produce her business records, though she may seek protective orders for third-party privacy concerns or request in-camera review. Charity records were deemed outside the subpoena's scope and require a more specific demand.

Petition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumTax Records PrivilegeRevenue and Taxation Code Section 19282Webb v. Standard Oil Co.Schnabel v. Superior CourtPublic Policy ExceptionConfidential Financial InformationThird-Party Privacy RightsProtective Order
References
2
Case No. ADJ9506185
Regular
Jul 13, 2016

JIM NEWELL vs. COUNTY OF KERN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of Kern's petition for reconsideration of an award to Jim Newell. The award was based on industrial cumulative trauma to the lumbar spine and hypertensive cardiovascular disease, including left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). The County argued there was insufficient evidence of LVH and sought further medical development, specifically a cardiac MRI. The Board found that the existing medical evidence, including echocardiograms and expert testimony, constituted substantial evidence to support the LVH diagnosis, making further testing unnecessary.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCounty of KernJim NewellSheriff's Sergeantcumulative traumalumbar spinecirculatory systemhypertensionhypertensive cardiovascular diseaseleft ventricular hypertrophy
References
2
Case No. ADJ941214 (GOL 0100841) ADJ4142548 (GOL 0100842)
Regular
Jan 16, 2009

SARAH NEWELL vs. SPECTRUM HEALTH CLUB, AIG CLAIM SERVICES, INC.

Petition for reconsideration denied; sanctions of $200.00 payable by Gail Taylor.

Appeals Board Rule 10842Appeals Board Rule 10848petition for reconsiderationsanctioncounsel violationnotice of intentiondenial of reconsiderationattorney sanctionsprocedural violationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ11054646, ADJ11055389, ADJ10719681
Regular
Apr 07, 2025

ALAN NEWELL vs. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT

Applicant Alan Newell sought reconsideration of a WCJ's Findings and Awards from January 3, 2025, concerning two industrial injuries. The WCJ had rated permanent disability by combining all impairments, contrary to the Agreed Medical Evaluator Dr. Chester A. Hasday's opinion on how to combine impairments based on overlapping Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that Dr. Hasday's pre-Vigil decision rebuttal analysis for combining impairments based on ADL overlap was valid, and the record needed further development. The case was remanded to defer the issues of permanent disability and apportionment for further analysis.

Petition for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentCombined Values ChartActivities of Daily Living (ADLs)Medical TreatmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorOrthopedistLabor Code Section 4663Rebuttal
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07472 [176 AD3d 1374]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2019

Matter of HALL v. DAVIS

William Hall (father) initiated a child support proceeding against Sarah Davis (mother) after their child began living with him. The Support Magistrate imputed income to the mother and ordered her to pay child support. The mother appealed, arguing that Family Court erred in upholding the Support Magistrate's income imputation. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that while imputing income was appropriate, the specific amount imputed was not supported by the record, considering the mother's lack of current licensure and her full-time work on a farm. The court remitted the matter for a redetermination of the mother's support obligation.

Child supportImputed incomeFamily CourtAppellate DivisionParental obligationIncome calculationSupport MagistrateDiscretionFarming incomeSocial worker
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weinreb v. Weinreb

This case involves a subrogation action brought by Security Insurance Company of Hartford, in the name of Sabina Weinreb, seeking indemnification from Wolf, Leon, and Sarah Weinreb (Weinreb Management Company). The action stems from a prior negligence suit by Joseph Restivo against the Weinrebs, where Sabina Weinreb was held liable, and Security paid a $500,000 judgment. Security, who defended all Weinrebs in the original suit without reservation of rights, now claims Sabina is entitled to indemnification from the other Weinrebs as the active tortfeasors, citing an employee exclusion in their policy. The defendants' motion to dismiss was initially denied by the IAS Judge. The Appellate Division, however, reviewed the full record and concluded that Security's subrogation action against its own insureds is not permissible, aligning with the principle established in Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v Austin Powder Co.

SubrogationIndemnificationInsurer-insured relationsConflict of interestEmployee exclusionPremises liabilityMotion to dismissAppellate reviewActive tortfeasorReservation of rights
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 41 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