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 Kim K.

The court addressed the Law Guardian's motion to prevent the 13-year-old child, Kim K., from testifying in a fact-finding hearing, citing her fragile emotional state. The respondent grandmother and the Department of Social Services presented conflicting positions regarding the necessity of Kim's testimony for corroborating out-of-court statements. Acknowledging its dual mandate to protect the child and determine neglect, the court denied the outright prevention of testimony. Instead, it ordered an in camera interview with Kim, detailing a procedure for counsel to submit questions and for the court to conduct the session, deciding on the sworn status of her testimony. The court further ruled that such in camera testimony, conducted under its prescribed procedure, could independently serve as sufficient evidence to support a finding of neglect.

Child protective proceedingChild witnessIn camera testimonyEmotional fragilityFact-finding hearingCorroboration of statementsFamily Court ActLaw GuardianDue processHearsay evidence
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S. Children

This child protective proceeding was initiated by The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children against a father accused of sexually abusing his young son, Scott, in the presence of his older son, Jonathan. When Jonathan, an alleged eyewitness, became reluctant to testify in his father's presence, the petitioner requested his testimony be taken in camera. The court denied this application, citing the respondent's due process right to confront witnesses and finding insufficient evidence of a pathological impact on the child. The court emphasized the absence of statutory provisions for in camera testimony in such cases and suggested legislative consideration for future procedures to balance child protection with parental rights.

Child Protective ProceedingIn Camera TestimonyDue Process RightsRight to ConfrontationChild WitnessSexual Abuse AllegationsFamily Court ActWitness ReluctanceBalancing of InterestsExclusion of Respondent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1987

People v. Figueroa

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court, Orange County, convicting him of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree. The defendant argued that the evidence was legally insufficient due to inconsistencies in the nine-year-old victim's testimony and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court found the victim's sworn testimony provided a rational basis for the jury's conclusion, and the evidence was legally sufficient. The court addressed the victim's delayed reporting, minor inconsistencies in her testimony, and conflicting medical expert opinions, ultimately affirming the judgment.

Rape First DegreeSodomy First DegreeSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceChild Victim TestimonyCredibility of WitnessCorroboration of TestimonyDelayed ReportingExpert Medical TestimonySexual Abuse Evidence
References
28
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03326
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2024

Matter of D.F. (Erica L.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Family Court, Bronx County's finding that the mother, Erica L., neglected her child, D.F., by inflicting excessive corporal punishment. The child's consistent in-court testimony, corroborated by statements to emergency and ACS workers, detailed multiple incidents of physical abuse with various objects, causing pain and fear. The court found the child's testimony credible and the mother's incredible. The decision emphasized that sworn testimony alone is competent evidence of abuse, even without physical injury, and that the punishments were not justified as reasonable discipline. Procedural arguments by the mother regarding pleadings and hearsay were unpreserved or found unavailing.

child neglectcorporal punishmentphysical abuseFamily Court Actcredibility determinationappellate reviewevidentiary standardschild testimonyAdministration for Children's Servicesparental rights
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Cheatham

Justice Spatt dissents, voting to affirm a judgment against a defendant convicted of a crime involving a 10-year-old victim at a Queens public school. The defendant argued for reversal due to insufficient evidence and inconsistent witness testimony, or to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. Spatt, J., found the 12-year-old victim's sworn testimony, given two years after the 1985 incident, legally sufficient and the verdict supported by the evidence. The victim identified the defendant, a Parks Department employee assigned to the school's vicinity, who matched her description and had knowledge of the school. The dissent addresses and refutes the defendant's claims regarding uniform color and lack of key possession as not being decisive. The trial court's "special scrutiny" of the victim's "forthright and unwavering" testimony led to a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which Justice Spatt upholds.

Criminal LawAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceEyewitness IdentificationChild VictimSexual AssaultDissenting OpinionCriminal Procedure LawQueens County
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. ADJ8075448
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

ALEX ROBLES vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a trial judge's award in favor of applicant Alex Robles against Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). SCGC sought reconsideration, asserting that crucial testimony was omitted from the trial record. The WCAB ordered transcription of all trial testimony to ensure a full and fair adjudication of SCGC's petition. This action was necessary to allow the Board further study of the factual and legal issues involved.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAOE/COEGoing and Coming RuleMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceTrial TestimonyWCAB Rule 10740Transcript TranscriptionElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Washington v. Montefiore Hospital

Claimant, a mechanical engineer, sustained a work-related injury and received initial workers' compensation benefits. The employer later contested further disability, leading to a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) order for medical expert depositions, including one from the employer's expert, Robert Orlandi. Claimant's counsel objected to Orlandi's telephone deposition but failed to formally challenge the notice or raise a specific objection to the oath administration during the deposition. Orlandi's testimony, taken via telephone with the court reporter in New York and Orlandi in Connecticut, concluded that the claimant was no longer disabled. Both the WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board credited Orlandi's testimony, finding the claimant waived objections to the deposition's procedural irregularities. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the claimant's failure to make a timely and specific objection to the oath's administration during the deposition constituted a waiver, thus allowing the Board to properly rely on Orlandi's evidence.

Workers' CompensationMedical TestimonyDeposition ProcedureWaiver of ObjectionCPLROath AdministrationDisability AssessmentAppellate ReviewExpert WitnessProcedural Irregularities
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Morelli v. Tops Markets

Claimant, having sustained work-related injuries in 2007 and receiving benefits, was questioned by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) regarding work activities at a 2011 hearing. Immediately after, the employer and its carrier sought to introduce surveillance video and investigator testimony, alleging a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The WCLJ denied this request and precluded the evidence, ruling that the carrier failed to disclose the surveillance prior to the claimant's testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, reiterating the established requirement for timely disclosure of surveillance materials to prevent 'gamesmanship.' The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary or capricious action, as the carrier had an opportunity to disclose the evidence before prompting the WCLJ's questioning and before the claimant testified.

Workers' Compensation LawSurveillance EvidenceDisclosure ObligationPreclusion of EvidenceAppellate ReviewEvidence AdmissibilityClaimant TestimonyEmployer ResponsibilitiesCarrier ResponsibilitiesBoard Decision
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2004

Claim of Petit v. Syracuse Housing Authority

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that found the claimant did not violate Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a by knowingly misrepresenting a material fact. The employer and State Insurance Fund appealed this finding. The court upheld the Board’s determination, stating that the claimant’s sworn testimony was consistent with video surveillance and investigator testimony, thus constituting substantial evidence. The claimant provided explanations for activities shown in surveillance that were seemingly inconsistent with his reported disability, but the court found he did not testify falsely. Therefore, the Board’s decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationMisrepresentationDisability BenefitsSurveillance EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceMedical Examiner OpinionClaimant CredibilityAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmation
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 2,588 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