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 Susan B.

Susan, a 15-year-old girl, was deemed a "Person In Need of Supervision" (PINS) due to persistent incorrigible conduct, including truancy and physical assault. Despite multiple failed placements in various treatment centers, the Family Court affirmed her placement at the Hudson School for Girls, considering it the most suitable resource. On appeal, the order was unanimously affirmed, with the court rejecting arguments that continued placement beyond the age of 16 violates due process and equal protection guarantees under the Federal and State Constitutions, based on interpretations of the Family Court Act.

Juvenile LawPINSFamily Court ActDue ProcessEqual ProtectionPlacement ExtensionIncorrigible ConductHudson School for GirlsAppellate ReviewLaw Guardian
References
2
Case No. 534831
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Susan Zuhlke

Susan Zuhlke appealed two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board concerning a schedule loss of use (SLU) award for her right leg injuries. Zuhlke, a teacher, suffered right ankle and knee/tibia fractures in October 2018, later including fibular neuropathy. While a 25.8% SLU for her right foot was stipulated, a dispute arose over the right knee, with the Board ultimately affirming a 15% SLU based on the carrier's medical consultant's opinion and denial of reconsideration. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported the 15% SLU award for the right knee, consistent with impairment guidelines and prior Board decisions regarding tibial plateau fractures.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseSLURight Leg InjuryTibial Plateau FractureFibular NeuropathyMaximum Medical ImprovementImpairment GuidelinesMedical OpinionsAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Conservatorship of Wargold

This case concerns an application by the Public Administrator for the appointment of a conservator for Susan Ellen Wargold's property under Article 77 of the Mental Hygiene Law. Susan, the sole distributee of her father's estate, was alleged to be unable to manage her property due to mental infirmity. Hearings included testimony from Dr. Deutsch, a psychiatrist, who noted Susan's history of bizarre behavior and a likely diagnosis of schizophrenia, but also significant improvement since her hospitalization. Susan testified about her financial habits, including high spending and reliance on a guardian ad litem, but affirmed her ability to manage daily finances and desire to retain control over investments with an advisor. The court found that while Susan exhibited eccentricities and potential poor judgment, there was insufficient clear and convincing evidence of 'substantial impairment' of her ability to care for her property as required by law. The petition for conservatorship was denied, though the court noted remaining areas of concern and suggested future applications might require additional counsel for Susan.

ConservatorshipMental Hygiene LawProperty ManagementFinancial IncapacityPsychiatric EvaluationSchizophreniaGuardian Ad LitemSubstantial ImpairmentRight to PropertyMedical Testimony
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ganthier v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Healthy System

Esther Ganthier sued North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Susan Tobin, GreyStone Staffing, Inc., and Karen Westerlind alleging race and national origin discrimination, First Amendment retaliation, and conspiracy. GreyStone and Westerlind moved to dismiss, while Ganthier cross-moved for leave to amend her complaint. The Court granted the motion to dismiss all claims against GreyStone and Westerlind, finding individuals are not liable under Title VII and GreyStone was not named in the EEOC charge. It also dismissed Section 1981, First Amendment retaliation, and conspiracy claims due to pleading deficiencies. Consequently, the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state and city human rights laws against the dismissed defendants and denied Ganthier's cross-motion to amend as futile, instructing to amend the caption to reflect only North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System and Susan Tobin as defendants.

DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationFirst Amendment RetaliationConspiracyMotion to DismissLeave to AmendTitle VII ClaimsSection 1981 ClaimsFederal Civil Procedure Rules
References
34
Case No. ADJ3083395 (BAK 146844)
Regular
Nov 20, 2008

Susan Lindley vs. PANAMA BUENA VISTA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a finding that an applicant sustained an industrial injury while on paid administrative leave from her employer. The applicant was sent home to await a call from her employer and injured herself while performing a household chore during her paid work hours. The Board applied the "personal convenience" doctrine, deeming the applicant's actions reasonably contemplated by her employment situation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSusan LindleyPanama Buena Vista Union School Districtbus driver trainerindustrial injuryleft elbowarose out of employmentin the course of employmentpaid administrative leavepersonal convenience doctrine
References
5
Case No. BAK 0146844
Regular
Sep 07, 2007

SUSAN LINDLEY vs. PANAMA BUENA VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant school district's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision due to statutory time constraints and the need for further review. This action is intended to allow the Board to thoroughly study the factual and legal issues for a more complete understanding and a just decision. All future communications regarding this case should be directed to the Reconsideration Unit.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPanama Buena Vista Unified School DistrictPermissibly Self-InsuredOpinion and OrderFactual IssuesLegal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionReconsideration UnitSan Francisco
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 1995

Croston v. Montefiore Hospital

Plaintiff Susan Croston, a technologist-trainee at Montefiore Medical Center, contracted Tuberculosis and AIDS after being pricked by a needle containing patient "John Doe's" blood during an analysis procedure on September 9, 1988. Defendant Montefiore Medical Center moved for summary judgment, arguing that Croston was an employee under Workers' Compensation Law, which provides exclusive remedies for workplace injuries, thus barring her personal injury action. The IAS Court initially denied this motion, finding a factual dispute regarding Croston's employment status. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that an employer-employee relationship existed because the hospital controlled and supervised her work, which benefited the hospital, and the training received was considered equivalent to wages. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint against the hospital was dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationEmployment StatusTraineeNeedle PrickInfectionTuberculosisAIDSSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Albert Lindley Lee Memorial Hospital

This Memorandum-Decision and Order addresses an objection to a priority claim filed by the New York State Department of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Division, against The Albert Lindley Lee Memorial Hospital, a Debtor in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The claim, number 179, seeks priority status for reimbursement of unemployment insurance compensation benefits paid to the Debtor's former employees. The Debtor contended that these "payments in lieu of contributions" were not taxes and should be treated as general unsecured claims, while the State argued for priority under Bankruptcy Code section 507(a)(8)(D) or (E). Applying the Lorber test, the court determined that the reimbursement liability constitutes a "tax" due to its involuntary, public-purpose nature imposed under state power, and it met additional criteria of universal applicability without disadvantaging private creditors. Consequently, the Debtor's objection was overruled, and the Claim was allowed as a priority excise tax claim under 11 U.S.C. section 507(a)(8)(E).

BankruptcyPriority ClaimUnemployment InsuranceExcise TaxEmployment TaxNonprofit OrganizationState ClaimDebtor ObjectionSection 507(a)(8)(E)Lorber Test
References
26
Case No. ADJ6994308
Regular
Aug 19, 2010

SUSAN TAYLOR vs. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

This case involves a nurse, Susan Taylor, who sustained an industrial injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the employer's petition for reconsideration and corrected a clerical error. The Board affirmed the award of temporary total disability indemnity, finding the applicant intended to return to work despite some confusion regarding her retirement status. The WCAB also determined the employer improperly delayed challenging the industrial causation of the applicant's wrist surgery.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationClerical ErrorTemporary Total DisabilityIndustrial InjuryRight ThumbBilateral WristsLeft Wrist SurgeryPost-Retirement IncomeQualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baldwin v. Goddard Riverside Community Center

Plaintiff Susan Baldwin sued her former employer, Goddard Riverside Community Center, for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She alleged retaliation for opposing housing discrimination against Russian applicants and supporting a co-worker's discrimination lawsuit. The defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court found no direct evidence of retaliatory animus or disparate treatment. Relying solely on temporal proximity, the court determined it was insufficient to establish a causal connection between Baldwin's protected activities and the alleged adverse actions, especially given that many adverse actions and termination discussions began before her key protected activities. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was closed.

RetaliationEmployment DiscriminationHousing DiscriminationTitle VIINYSHRLNYCHRLSummary JudgmentProtected ActivityCausal ConnectionTemporal Proximity
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 123 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