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
Apr 05, 1956

Gluckstern v. Gluckstern

In this separation case, the Special Term initially granted a decree of separation to the plaintiff wife and awarded her custody of their six-year-old son. The appellate court found it difficult to assess the parents' qualifications solely from the record. It suggested that a thorough investigation by a trained social worker, available through the newly established Special Term, Part XII (Family Part), could help resolve doubts regarding custody. Consequently, the amended judgment of February 17, 1956, was modified, remitting the custody decision back to the trial justice for utilization of these services. Additionally, a motion to amend support and maintenance provisions was also remitted, pending the final custody decision.

SeparationChild CustodyRemittalJudicial ReviewSocial Worker InvestigationFamily LawAppellate DivisionSpecial TermParental FitnessSupport and Maintenance
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chant v. Filippelli

The petitioner appealed an order from the Family Court of Warren County, which had dismissed their application to modify a prior custody order regarding their daughter, born in 1991. The Family Court had found no substantial change in circumstances to warrant a modification, deeming it in the child's best interest to remain in the respondent's custody. The appellate court affirmed this decision, deferring to the Family Court's assessment of testimony and witness credibility. The court noted the child's positive development under the existing custody arrangement and rejected the petitioner's arguments concerning a school counselor's testimony versus a psychiatric social worker's recommendation, as well as the child's separation from a half-sibling.

CustodyVisitationChild's Best InterestFamily LawCustody ModificationAppellate ReviewParental FitnessChange of CircumstancesWarren County
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Estes v. Estes

This case involves cross-appeals from an October 9, 1984 Family Court order in Rensselaer County concerning the custody of two children, Joshua M. Estes and Tanya A. Estes. The petitioner, the father, initially sought exclusive custody after moving the children from Colorado to New York. The Family Court ultimately granted permanent custody of Joshua to the petitioner and Tanya to the respondent, the mother, while also restricting either parent from removing the children from Rensselaer County without court permission. Both parents appealed, arguing that separating the siblings was against their best interests and each desiring full custody. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, citing evidence from a social worker and probation officer, along with the children's expressed preferences, which supported the continuation of the split custody arrangement and the geographic restriction.

Child Custody DisputeSplit Custody OrderBest Interests of the ChildFamily Law AppealParental Relocation RestrictionRensselaer County Family CourtAppellate AffirmationParental Fitness AssessmentSocial Worker ReportProbation Officer Investigation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2015

M.D. v. Abbott

This class action lawsuit was brought by named minor plaintiffs against officials of the State of Texas, alleging violations of their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights within the state's foster care system. The court found that the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) exhibited structural deficiencies causing an unreasonable risk of harm to children in permanent managing conservatorship. Key issues included excessive caseworker workloads, inadequate oversight of licensed foster care facilities (faulty abuse/neglect investigations, lack of child-on-child abuse tracking, weak licensing enforcement), and an insufficient placement array leading to children being placed far from home, separated from siblings, and in inappropriate group settings. The court granted injunctive relief and ordered the appointment of a Special Master to oversee comprehensive reforms of the system.

Foster Care ReformChild WelfareDue ProcessConstitutional RightsClass ActionDeliberate IndifferenceProfessional JudgmentCaseworker WorkloadChild Abuse and NeglectPlacement Deficiencies
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re St. Christopher-Ottillie

This case involves an appeal concerning the adoption of a child whose initial placement with his aunt and uncle was delayed due to "agency mishaps", leading him to form a strong attachment with his foster parents, Maryann G. and Rafael M. The Law Guardian and interveners Carmen P. and Felix P. appealed orders directing and approving the child's adoption by the foster parents. The appellate court found the existing record insufficient, particularly noting the absence of independent expert psychological evidence regarding the child's best interests, especially concerning potential trauma from separation versus the benefits of sibling reunification. Consequently, the court reversed the Family Court's orders and remitted the matter for a new hearing, emphasizing the critical need for independent psychological evaluations to properly assess the child's current psychological state and make a determination that prioritizes his best interests.

Child adoptionfoster caresibling reunificationindependent expert evidencepsychological evaluationchild traumaFamily Court Act Article 10Family Court Act Section 1055-aKings County Family Courtappellate reversal
References
11
Case No. 11-22-00085-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2023

George Francis Sheehan, Jr. v. Pamela Sheehan

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce where Appellant, George Francis Sheehan, Jr., contended the trial court erred by characterizing proceeds from an underinsured-motorist-claim settlement as community property. George was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2014 and received a UIM settlement of $1,250,000 in 2019, with a net amount of $710,724.25 deposited into a joint checking account with Pamela Sheehan before their final separation. George argued the funds were his separate property based on a second settlement agreement executed after the funds were received and disbursed, which allocated proceeds to personal injury damages. The Eleventh Court of Appeals, however, found the first settlement agreement, executed contemporaneously with the mediation, did not allocate specific damages and that the later agreement did not alter the marital property characterization. The court concluded that George failed to meet his burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence which portion of the settlement proceeds was his separate property, as the first settlement released both community and separate property claims. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

divorcecommunity propertyseparate propertyunderinsured motorist claimsettlement proceedsmarital propertyabuse of discretionclear and convincing evidencepersonal injury damagesTexas Family Code
References
20
Case No. OXN 0128150, OXN 0128151, OXN 0128152
Regular
Sep 17, 2007

PEGGY A. RICO vs. AQUARIA, INC., CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES, CIGA, For RELIANCE INSURANCE, In Liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to determine if applicant Peggy Rico sustained separate cumulative trauma injuries. The WCAB found that the applicant's return to work with a different insurer, involving distinct injurious exposures and new medical symptoms, constituted a separate industrial injury from her earlier cumulative trauma. Consequently, the case was remanded for a new determination of liability for benefits based on these separate injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGAReliance InsuranceChubb GroupCumulative Trauma InjurySeparate Industrial InjuryMedical EvidenceDate of InjuryLabor Code Section 5412Labor Code Section 5500.5
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Brannigan v. Town of Oyster Bay

The employer appealed decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board concerning the discharge of the Special Disability Fund. The employer argued that disability and death claims were treated as a single case, and thus, a separate reimbursement claim for death benefits should not have been required. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that claims for disability and death benefits are distinct and necessitate separate reimbursement applications. The court found the Board's strict adherence to this mandate rational, noting the employer had ample opportunity to file a separate claim within the two-year period.

Special Disability FundReimbursementDeath BenefitsDisability BenefitsSeparate ClaimsWorkers' Compensation BoardEmployer ResponsibilityAppellate ReviewProcedural Compliance
References
2
Case No. W2004-02815-COA-R3-CV, 03-DR-0063
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 2006

Yelena Utkina Kesterson v. Thomas Michael Kesterson

This case involves issues arising out of the parties’ divorce. The chancery court designated and divided marital assets, placing an equitable lien on the husband's separate property. The chancery court also denied alimony and attorney’s fees to the wife. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision in part, vacated it in part regarding the equitable lien on separate property, and reversed it in part regarding the designation of business interests as separate property. The case was remanded for further proceedings, and the appellate court declined to award attorney's fees and costs on appeal.

DivorceMarital Property DivisionSeparate PropertyAlimony DenialAttorney's FeesEquitable LienDissipation of Marital AssetsTransmutation DoctrineGift Inter VivosAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. ADJ8702052 ADJ8954034
Regular
Sep 13, 2018

James McClendon vs. Home Pest Defense (Rollins Inc), National Union First Insurance Company, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to review an award of 100% permanent disability for two industrial injuries. The defendant argued for separate disability awards based on apportionment between the two injuries, citing the *Benson* case, and challenged the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) opinion. The WCAB rescinded the original award and returned the case for further development of the medical record, specifically to clarify the AME's ability to separately rate the two injuries. The majority found the AME's reasoning for not separately rating the injuries was not consistent with applicable standards, while a dissenting commissioner believed the AME's determination was within his expertise and that the defendant failed to meet its apportionment burden.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent Total DisabilityJoint AwardApportionmentBensonAgreed Medical ExaminerFunctional Capacity EvaluationVocational ExpertDate of Injury
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,221 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