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. ADJ6598413
Regular
May 11, 2010

SUSAN TOSTE vs. KERMAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award. The Board found the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) impairment rating was based on an outdated legal standard rejected in *Almaraz/Guzman II*. Since the AME's report predated the controlling precedent and the evaluator wasn't given a chance to supplement their opinion under the correct legal framework, the case is returned to the trial level for further medical record development.

ADJ6598413Kerman Unified School DistrictTristar Risk ManagementSusan TosteWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryRight ShoulderPermanent Disability
References
6
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. 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
Case No. ADJ3298152
Regular
Oct 08, 2008

SUSAN DEAN vs. HOMEGROCER.COM, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Susan Dean's Petition for Reconsideration and denied her request for removal. The Board found that the orders at issue were interlocutory procedural orders concerning evidence and discovery, not final decisions that dispose of substantive rights. Therefore, they were not subject to reconsideration, and removal was not warranted due to lack of demonstrated prejudice or irreparable harm.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalInterlocutory OrdersFinal OrderSubstantive RightsLiabilitiesWCJ Pre-trial OrdersMedical EvaluationPrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
7
Case No. ADJ2513573
Regular
Jun 02, 2010

SUSAN PORTER vs. SHERROD CHIROPRACTIC, INC., dba PLACER CHIROPRACTIC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Susan Porter's petition for reconsideration of the arbitrator's decision. The Board adopted and incorporated the arbitrator's report as the basis for its denial. The specific reasons for the denial are contained within the arbitrator's report, which was not provided in this excerpt. Therefore, the original decision stands.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedArbitrator's ReportApplicantDefendantSherrod ChiropracticPlacer ChiropracticADJ2513573SAC 0369934Petition for Reconsideration
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 121 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