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

Prevost v. New York State Department of Social Services

The petitioners, maternal grandparents, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the State Commissioner of Social Services and the Warren County Department of Social Services. They sought to expunge a report from the State Central Register indicating inadequate guardianship concerning their grandson, Justin. Justin had been placed in foster care, and concerns arose about his behavior after monthly visits with the petitioners, prompting a psychiatrist to recommend discontinuing overnight visits. The psychiatric report detailed Justin's anger towards his grandmother and later allegations of diapering. Despite the petitioners' denials and claims of bias, the agency's decision to indicate inadequate guardianship was upheld after administrative review and a fair hearing. The court ultimately confirmed the determination, citing substantial evidence based on Justin's consistent accounts.

Child protective servicesInadequate guardianshipFoster careAdoption eligibilityCPLR article 78 proceedingAdministrative reviewExpungement of reportHearsay evidenceCredibility determinationSocial Services Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 1967

Holloway v. Board of Examiners

The petitioner, a school social worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to compel the respondent to provide copies of medical and other reports that led to an unsatisfactory rating in an examination for a Supervisor of School Social Workers license. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially dismissed the petition. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, granting the petition to the extent of directing the respondent to furnish the reports to a physician designated by the petitioner, rather than directly to the petitioner. The case was remanded to the Special Term for further proceedings, including a determination on allowing the petitioner more time to appeal the unsatisfactory rating.

Article 78 CPLRLicense ExaminationSchool Social WorkerMedical ReportsDisclosureAdministrative AppealUnsatisfactory RatingAppellate ReversalRemandPhysician Disclosure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Green v. Remling

This Supreme Court of Texas case addresses whether a trial court commits reversible error by considering a social study report not formally introduced into evidence in an adoption proceeding. Petitioners Oliver and Rada Green sought to adopt their nephews and niece, which the trial court granted. Respondents, the paternal grandparents and aunt, appealed, and the court of civil appeals reversed, arguing the lack of cross-examination rights. The Supreme Court reversed the court of civil appeals' judgment, holding that it is not error for a trial court to consider a social study prepared and filed according to the Texas Family Code, as the legislature intended judges to have full access to such reports. The court emphasized the importance of social studies in determining the best interests of the child, provided parties have the opportunity to call the author for examination. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Adoption LawFamily LawSocial Study ReportEvidence AdmissibilityAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionBest Interests of ChildProcedural Due ProcessCross-Examination RightsStatutory Interpretation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Report of the Special Grand Jury

This case involves five appeals challenging the procedures and evidence supporting a Special Grand Jury's reports, which recommended discipline or removal for employees of the Monroe County Department of Social Services. The Grand Jury was empanelled in 1978 to investigate the department's handling of child abuse cases. Although the County Court accepted the reports for filing, it sealed them pending appeal and later affirmed its decision. The appellate court, however, found significant procedural irregularities, including inadequate jury instructions and improper subcommittee formation, and determined that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the misconduct charges against the appellants. Consequently, the County Court's orders were reversed, and the Grand Jury reports were ordered to be sealed.

Grand Jury ReportChild Abuse InvestigationMonroe County Department of Social ServicesPublic Servants MisconductProcedural IrregularitiesSufficiency of EvidenceGrand Jury InstructionsSealing ReportsCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 29, 2012

House v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Sheryl L. House sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her disability insurance benefits application. A Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, concluding that the Administrative Law Judge's decision finding Plaintiff not disabled was supported by substantial evidence. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying Plaintiff's similar motion. The District Judge adopted this Report and Recommendation in its entirety, thus upholding the denial of disability benefits.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician's RuleMedical-Vocational GuidelinesCredibility AssessmentPhysical ImpairmentsJudicial ReviewMotion for Judgment on Pleadings
References
54
Case No. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2005

Snead v. Commissioner of Social Security

Gladys Snead, the plaintiff, initiated this action under the Social Security Act to appeal the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her disability benefits. United States Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis issued a Report and Recommendation, concluding that the Administrative Law Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and proposing that the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted. As no objections were filed by the parties, District Judge Holwell reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding no clear error, the District Court adopted the Report in its entirety. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, affirming the denial of Snead's disability benefits.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsALJ DecisionJudicial ReviewReport and RecommendationJudgment on PleadingsClear Error ReviewWaiver of ObjectionsResidual Functional CapacityDepression
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Feliciano v. Colvin

Plaintiff Carmen Feliciano sought judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Supplemental Security Income. Both the plaintiff and defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings. The court examined whether the Commissioner's decision, which concluded the plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act, was supported by substantial evidence. The court considered new evidence submitted to the Appeals Council, including a report from the plaintiff's treating physician, but found it inconsistent with other substantial evidence, such as reports from three consulting physicians. Ultimately, the court concluded that the Administrative Law Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the plaintiff's cross-motion was denied, leading to a final judgment for the defendant.

Social SecuritySupplemental Security IncomeDisability BenefitsJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilResidual Functional CapacityLight WorkSubstantial EvidenceTreating Physician Rule
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2006

Rivera v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Russell Rivera, Jr. challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying him Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Frank Maas, who issued a Report and Recommendation to remand the action for further administrative proceedings, citing deficiencies in the plaintiff's hearing. After defendant objected to a time limit, an Amended Report and Recommendation was issued, omitting the disputed time limitation. District Judge Richard J. Holwell, finding no clear error, adopted the Amended Report in its entirety, granting the Commissioner’s motion. The court's decision was based on the Administrative Law Judge's failure to fully develop the administrative record and adequately consider the treating physician’s opinion, Dr. Asbury, whose findings differed from a nonexamining medical consultant.

Social Security BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeDisability DeterminationAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) ReviewRemand OrderTreating Physician RuleMedical AssessmentHIV/AIDS ImpairmentHepatitis C DiagnosisProcedural Error
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Daniel S. v. Dowling

The case involves a 10-year-old child who was allegedly abused by his father, leading to an 'unfounded' child abuse report by the local child protective service. A Law Guardian, appointed for the child in a family offense proceeding, sought administrative review of this determination, but it was upheld. The child, through the Law Guardian, then filed an Article 78 proceeding, arguing that the statutory and regulatory scheme for unfounded reports denies due process by lacking meaningful review. The court agreed, finding that the absence of notice to the child or a representative, and the lack of a formal review procedure for 'unfounded' determinations, creates a high risk of erroneous deprivation of the child's right to protection. The court declared the current system unconstitutional regarding due process for reported child victims and directed the New York State Department of Social Services to provide an administrative hearing for the petitioner.

Due ProcessChild AbuseChild NeglectUnfounded ReportAdministrative ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingDeclaratory JudgmentChild Protection ServicesNew York State LawConstitutional Rights
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 7,558 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