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 Commissioner of Social Services

The Commissioner of the Erie County Department of Social Services appealed an order by Family Court Judge John J. Honan. Judge Honan's order required the Commissioner to show cause why they should not be held in contempt and relieved of child protection responsibility, following an incident where a child in their custody was briefly abducted by her mother. The Commissioner's motion to vacate this show cause order was denied by the Family Court. On appeal, the higher court unanimously reversed the denial, finding no evidence of contempt against the Commissioner. The appellate court also clarified that Family Court lacks the authority to divest the Department of Social Services of its statutory responsibilities for child protection under the Social Services Law.

Child ProtectionSocial Services LawContempt of CourtShow Cause OrderJudicial AuthorityFamily Court JurisdictionAppellate ReviewChild AbductionFoster CareStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGinn v. Morrin

This order addresses the defendants' motion to vacate and set aside the service of various legal documents, including an order to show cause, affidavit, summons, and verified complaint. The court unanimously affirmed the denial of the defendants' motion. The decision included an award of twenty dollars in costs and disbursements. Defendants were also granted leave to answer within twenty days after the service of the order, contingent upon the payment of the aforementioned costs.

Motion to VacateService of ProcessOrder to Show CauseVerified ComplaintCosts and DisbursementsAffirmation of OrderLeave to Answer
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2006

Hatfill v. Foster

This decision and order revisits the choice of substantive law in a libel case filed by Dr. Steven Hatfill against Conde Nast Publications, Donald Foster, and The Reader's Digest Association, concerning articles published about the 2001 anthrax attacks. Initially, the court had determined Virginia law applied. However, after further jurisdictional discovery revealed that plaintiff Hatfill had made misrepresentations about his domicile, the court reversed its prior ruling. It concluded that Hatfill was domiciled in Washington D.C. at the time of the articles' publication, and therefore, Washington D.C. law will govern the substantive issues for all defendants. Additionally, the court ordered plaintiff's counsel to show cause why their pro hac vice status should not be revoked due to these alleged misrepresentations and omissions of material facts regarding their client's domicile.

LibelDefamationChoice of LawDomicile DeterminationJurisdictional DiscoveryMisrepresentation to CourtPro Hac Vice RevocationForum ShoppingSingle Publication RuleConflict of Laws
References
19
Case No. ADJ7709362
Regular
Dec 05, 2011

Gloria Kudelko vs. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal and reassignment of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board matter. The defendant sought removal of an order from August 9, 2011, which scheduled trial, ordered a claims adjuster to appear, and ordered her to show cause for failing to appear at a prior conference. The Board granted the petition, rescinded the August 9, 2011 order, and returned the case for reassignment to a different WCJ for trial. The Board also stated the current WCJ should proceed with the sanctions issue, allowing the adjuster an opportunity to show good cause for her non-appearance.

Petition for RemovalWCJ SanctionClaims Adjuster AppearanceReassignment WCJMandatory Settlement ConferenceShow Cause OrderIndustrial InjuryWCAB Rule 10453Interlocutory OrderPetition for Reassignment
References
0
Case No. ADJ4511531 (LAO 0860156)
Regular
Dec 16, 2010

LEE HARPER vs. KING DREW MEDICAL CENTER, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves a lien claimant, VQ OrthoCare, whose litigation manager inadvertently checked the wrong box on an electronic filing form, requesting a "Status Conference" instead of a "Lien Conference." The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) issued an Order to Show Cause why sanctions should not be imposed for this error and for allegedly filing a false declaration regarding settlement. The Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petition for removal, finding the WCJ's order to be an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision subject to reconsideration. Ultimately, the Board rescinded the order to show cause and dismissed the petition for reconsideration, deeming the error excusable and lacking legal basis for sanctions.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder to Show CauseSanctionsLien ClaimantDeclaration of ReadinessStatus ConferenceLien ConferenceEAMS
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bowen v. County of Westchester

Plaintiffs Indira Bowen and her children alleged Fourth Amendment rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the New York Constitution, along with common law torts, against the County of Westchester, the Town of Greenburgh, and John Doe officers. The claims arose from an October 7, 2004 search of their home by Greenburgh police and Westchester probation officers, who were executing a search order for probationer Roylin Fairclough. Plaintiffs contended the search order was based on inaccurate information regarding Fairclough's residence and that Greenburgh officers used excessive force. The court granted summary judgment for both municipal defendants, finding no underlying constitutional violation by the probation officer nor any municipal policy or custom causing the alleged deprivations. Additionally, the court found no evidence of excessive force linked to Greenburgh's policy and ordered the plaintiffs to show cause for why the claims against the unidentified John Doe defendants should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Fourth Amendment42 U.S.C. § 1983New York ConstitutionCivil RightsSummary JudgmentMunicipal LiabilityMonell ClaimProbation SearchExcessive ForceDeliberate Indifference
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 1997

LaVigna v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion for discovery and to amend the complaint. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the order. The claims against Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. were dismissed due to the Workers' Compensation Law § 11 exclusivity rule, as plaintiff Robert LaVigna was an employee. Plaintiffs failed to show deliberate conduct to bypass this rule or wanton behavior for punitive damages. Additionally, plaintiffs did not demonstrate that Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. had knowledge of a defective condition causing fume seepage. The denial of additional discovery was upheld due to lack of diligence, and the motion to add J.T. Falk as a defendant was denied due to the Statute of Limitations and plaintiffs' investigative delinquency.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentDiscoveryComplaint AmendmentStatute of LimitationsUnited in Interest DoctrinePunitive DamagesPremises LiabilityFume ExposureAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Local No. 5 v. Hudson Valley District Council Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Joint Benefit Funds

This case concerns the authority of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen to appoint trustees to employee benefit (ERISA) funds, displacing previously appointed trustees from superseded local union entities. The International Union merged local entities into a new Local 5 and appointed Emil Parietti, Jr. as its President, granting him authority to appoint trustees. A previously appointed trustee declined to be replaced, causing a dispute where the new Local 5 has fewer than its authorized number of trustees on the ERISA funds. The court found that the International Union has the ultimate authority in such matters and that the continued service of trustees against the appointing authority's wishes causes irreparable injury. While the plaintiffs' specific request for an injunction was deemed too broad, the court determined that the requirements for a preliminary injunction placing Mr. Parietti's designee were met. The court directed the parties to seek settlement and ordered the defendants to show cause why such a preliminary injunction should not be entered.

International Trade UnionsLabor Management Relations ActERISAEmployee Benefit FundsTrustee AppointmentUnion Internal StructureLocal Union MergerPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable InjuryDuty of Fair Representation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larrier v. Miller

This case involves an action brought by a plaintiff against a defendant union seeking damages for assault and battery. The union filed a motion to dismiss the first cause of action alleged in the amended complaint. The court affirmed the order denying the union's motion to dismiss, insofar as appealed from. Additionally, the plaintiff was granted leave to serve a second amended complaint concerning the second cause of action within ten days from the entry of the order.

Assault and BatteryMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintUnion LiabilityDamagesCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewCosts and DisbursementsPanel DecisionLeave to Amend
References
0
Case No. ADJ7469597
Regular
Nov 14, 2014

ANA AVALOS vs. STAFFCHEX, INCORPORATED, LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's second petition for reconsideration, deeming it successive and without merit as it challenged interlocutory discovery orders, not a final decision. The Board, on its own motion, also issued a notice of intention to impose $1,000 in sanctions against applicant's counsel, Carl A. Feldman. This action was taken for filing a frivolous and bad-faith petition, disregarding prior explanations of final orders. Counsel has 15 days plus mailing time to show good cause why sanctions should not be imposed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder DismissingDenial of RemovalInterlocutory Discovery OrdersPQME AppointmentFinal OrderPre-trial OrdersWCJ's Report and RecommendationSuccessive Petition
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 26,038 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