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 Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. WR-83,135-01
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2015

Granger, Bartholomew

Bartholomew Granger, the applicant, is filing objections to the convicting court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in his writ of habeas corpus application. He argues that the convicting court failed to conduct an adequate fact-finding process, leaving numerous controverted and material factual issues unresolved. Key issues include potential prosecutorial misconduct regarding withheld evidence (his daughter's journal) and claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate and present crucial mitigating evidence. Granger also points out inaccuracies in his trial counsel's affidavits and criticizes the court's practice of adopting the State's proposed findings wholesale. Consequently, Granger requests the Court of Criminal Appeals to remand his application to the convicting court for a full and fair opportunity to address his claims.

habeas corpusineffective assistance of counselBrady violationprosecutorial misconductcapital murderpost-conviction reliefjudicial reviewfact-findingdue processTexas
References
19
Case No. 2019-08-0785
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2020

Lopez, Custodio v. Fayette Janitorial Service, LLC

The claimant, Custodio Lopez, alleged injuries from a fall while working for Fayette Janitorial Service, LLC. The employer filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting Lopez was an independent contractor, not an employee. The trial court granted the motion, finding insufficient evidence to establish an employment relationship and no genuine issues of material fact. The claimant appealed this decision. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the employer properly supported its motion for summary judgment and that the claimant's failure to respond rendered the employer's stated facts undisputed.

Independent ContractorSummary JudgmentEmployment RelationshipAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofTennessee LawMedical InjuryLadder FallPro Se LitigantFactual Findings
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00690 [168 AD3d 638]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2019

Cashbamba v. 1056 Bedford LLC

The plaintiff, Angel Leonides Cashbamba, fell from the seventh to the sixth floor of a building. He cross-moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, asserting a lack of safety devices. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding undisputed facts about the fall and absence of safety devices established liability. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for claims under Labor Law §§ 241 (6), 200, and common-law negligence due to triable issues of fact regarding the incident's specifics. Additionally, third-party claims for common-law indemnification and contribution were deemed non-viable under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, as the plaintiff's injury was not considered 'grave' given he returned to full-time employment.

Construction AccidentElevation-Related RiskSummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsGrave InjurySafety DevicesAppellate DivisionFirst DepartmentWorkers' Compensation Law
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06850 [212 AD3d 126]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2022

Matter of Levi v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd.

Petitioner, a licensed chiropractor, was removed from the list of authorized medical providers by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board after an investigation revealed he received unlawful payments from a durable medical equipment (DME) supplier, Elite Medical Supply of New York, LLC. This was deemed a violation of Workers' Compensation Law §§ 13-d (2) (g), 13-l (10) (g) and 8 NYCRR 29.1 (b) (3). Petitioner challenged this removal via a CPLR article 78 proceeding, asserting a statutory right to a hearing before the Chiropractic Practice Committee (CPC) prior to removal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed. The appellate court held that while Workers' Compensation Law § 13-l (10) outlines a CPC hearing process, the Chair of the Workers' Compensation Board also possesses independent authority under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 13-l (12) and 13-d (1) to investigate and remove a provider without a hearing when the underlying facts, such as petitioner's admitted receipt of unlawful payments, are undisputed and do not present questions of fact.

ChiropractorMedical ProviderAuthorization RemovalUnlawful PaymentsDurable Medical EquipmentWorkers' Compensation BoardProfessional MisconductDue ProcessAdministrative LawCPLR Article 78
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of I-Conscious R. (George S.)

This case involves an appeal concerning a Family Court order that determined a respondent father abused and neglected his daughter and derivatively abused and neglected his son. The appellate court affirmed the fact-finding order, concluding that the petitioner presented a preponderance of evidence, including medical findings of genital herpes in the child, indicative of sexual abuse. The court upheld the neglect finding due to the father's failure to secure timely medical care for his daughter's severe symptoms. Additionally, the respondent's arguments regarding the suggestiveness of interviews, the testimony of his expert witness, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were all rejected by the court. An appeal against a separate order of protection was dismissed due to abandonment.

Child AbuseChild NeglectSexual AbuseGenital HerpesMedical EvidenceFamily Court ProceedingsSufficiency of EvidenceCredibility AssessmentIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 103 B.R. 416
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 1989

Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)

The court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, granting a preliminary injunction against the IAM for their unlawful strike activities targeting Eastern Air Lines at LaGuardia and Hartsfield Airports. The enjoined conduct includes trespassing, mass picketing, harassment, violence, and vandalism against Eastern's employees, customers, and property. The court found that these actions caused substantial and irreparable harm to Eastern and that public authorities were unable or unwilling to provide adequate protection. While the injunction imposed strict restrictions on these disruptive behaviors, the court denied Eastern's request to enjoin residential picketing, citing the Norris-LaGuardia Act. This decision aims to balance the unions' right to strike with Eastern's need to continue operations and protect its assets and personnel during the Chapter 11 reorganization.

Preliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeAirline IndustryStrike ActivityUnlawful ConductMass PicketingHarassmentVandalismUnion LiabilityNorris-LaGuardia Act
References
116
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 1995

Vega v. Gasper

This document presents the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from a hearing held on January 18, 1995, in El Paso, Texas, following a remand from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court addressed the compensability of morning and afternoon wait times for seasonal agricultural workers employed by Defendant John W. Gasper. It concluded that both periods of wait time were compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as they primarily benefited Gasper and employees could not effectively use the time for personal purposes. The court also determined that Gasper lacked good faith and reasonable grounds for his failure to compensate the plaintiffs, making him liable for liquidated damages under the FLSA and statutory damages under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act (AWPA). Consequently, the court ordered a recomputation of the ultimate award in favor of the plaintiffs.

Agricultural LaborWage DisputesFair Labor Standards ActWorker ProtectionCompensable TimeLiquidated DamagesEmployer ResponsibilityRemand CaseTexas LawNew Mexico Employment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 1977

Thompson v. Offshore Co.

This action was brought by the survivors of four American decedents who died when the No. 4 leg of the Drilling Rig GEMINI collapsed in the Gulf of Suez on October 8, 1974. The defendants stipulated liability, and the trial proceeded solely on the issue of damages. The Court made findings of fact regarding the decedents' backgrounds, earnings, and family situations, and applied general maritime law, the Jones Act, and the Death on the High Seas Act to determine pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses. The Court denied recovery for conscious pain and suffering prior to death due to lack of evidence and also denied claims for penalty wages under 46 U.S.C. § 596, finding Sections 621-628 to be the exclusive statutory remedy for deceased seamen's wages. Total damages awarded were $414,000.00, plus unpaid wages for each decedent.

maritime lawwrongful deathdamagespecuniary lossloss of societyJones ActDeath on the High Seas Actoffshore drilling rigseamen's wagespenalty wages
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Monique M.

The mother appealed a fact-finding order that found she abused her child Sonique M. and derivatively abused Monique M., Treston D., and Daymondray T., and two dispositional orders. The evidence showed the mother allowed her boyfriend, against whom an order of protection was issued, back into her home, where he sexually abused Sonique M., and the mother failed to intervene. However, the Family Court erred by issuing the dispositional orders without first conducting a mandatory dispositional hearing, which violated due process. The appellate court reversed the orders of disposition and remitted the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, for a dispositional hearing before a different judge due to concerns about the original judge's impartiality.

Child AbuseDerivative AbuseDispositional HearingFamily Court Act Article 10Parental JudgmentOrder of Protection ViolationSexual AbuseJudicial ImpartialityDue ProcessRemittitur
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 3,982 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