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 the Adoption of J.

The case concerns an adoption proceeding initiated by a same-sex couple. The court addresses whether to appoint a guardian ad litem for the adoptive infant, a practice previously common in same-sex adoptions due to their novelty. Citing Matter of Dana, which affirmed the legality of same-sex and heterosexual unmarried couple adoptions, the court found no legal basis to treat same-sex adoptions differently from those by married couples, where a guardian ad litem is not automatically appointed if statutory requirements and social worker reports are favorable. The court concluded that denying equal treatment could violate federal and state equal protection clauses, deciding against appointing a guardian ad litem unless special circumstances are present.

AdoptionSame-sex coupleGuardian ad litemBest interest of childEqual protectionDomestic Relations LawStatutory interpretationCourt of AppealsSurrogate's CourtFamily Law
References
2
Case No. 26 NY3d 107 (2016)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2016

S.B. v. A.C.C.

This case addresses the definition of "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) for purposes of custody and visitation for unmarried couples. The New York Court of Appeals overrules its 1991 decision in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., which had limited parental standing to biological or adoptive parents. The Court now holds that a non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing if they can show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive and raise a child together. In Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., the Appellate Division's order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings under this new standard. In Matter of Estrellita A. v Jennifer L.D., the Appellate Division's order is affirmed, upholding standing based on judicial estoppel. This decision aims to address the unworkability of the Alison D. rule in light of evolving familial relationships, particularly for same-sex couples, and to protect the best interests of children.

Parental RightsCustodyVisitationSame-Sex CouplesNontraditional FamiliesEquitable EstoppelJudicial EstoppelPre-Conception AgreementDomestic Relations LawOverruling Precedent
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dunn v. Hunting Energy Servs.

Byron Dunn sued National Coupling Company, Inc. (NCC) for race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation, among other claims. The court previously dismissed Dunn's state-law claims. NCC filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining federal claims. The court overruled most of Dunn's evidentiary objections but sustained one regarding a translated co-worker statement. The court denied NCC's motion for summary judgment on Dunn's failure-to-promote, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims, finding genuine disputes of material fact. Summary judgment was granted to NCC on Dunn's claims of pay discrimination, disparate treatment regarding discipline, and disparate impact.

Employment DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationRace DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIISection 1981Federal CourtsFifth Circuit
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Montgomery v. Montgomery

Beatrice Harmon Montgomery and Terry Lane Montgomery, an unmarried couple, operated several businesses together for 27 years. Beatrice sued for dissolution of an implied business partnership, with their son Brian Montgomery intervening as a partner in some ventures. The Trial Court's finding of an equal partnership between Beatrice and Terry, and Brian's partnership in certain assets, was largely affirmed on appeal. The appellate court modified the ownership interest in specific land and vacated the method for calculating depreciation credits, remanding for recalculation. It also reversed a credit related to Terry's life insurance policy but upheld a $10,000 statutory damage award to Beatrice for a single wiretapping violation. The case was ultimately reversed in part, vacated in part, affirmed in part as modified, and remanded for further proceedings.

Partnership dissolutionImplied partnershipBusiness asset divisionJoint propertyCredibility findingsWiretappingStatutory damagesDepreciation calculationMisappropriation of fundsEqual partners
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2005

In Re CKG

This case before the Supreme Court of Tennessee addresses a novel question of legal maternity stemming from assisted reproduction. An unmarried couple, Dr. Charles K.G. (genetic father) and Ms. Cindy C. (gestational mother), used anonymously donated eggs fertilized by Charles's sperm, which Cindy carried to term, giving birth to triplets. After their relationship ended, Cindy filed a parentage action for custody and child support. Charles contested her parental standing due to a lack of genetic connection. The juvenile court and Court of Appeals found Cindy to be the legal mother, applying an "intent test." The Supreme Court affirmed Cindy's legal maternal status but vacated the "intent test" and estoppel findings. The Court established legal maternity based on a narrow set of factors: the pre-birth mutual intent for Cindy to be the legal mother and accept parental responsibilities; Cindy's gestation and birth of the children as her own; and the absence of a dispute with the genetic mother. The Court explicitly limited its holding to the specific facts, calling for legislative action on broad assisted reproduction policies. The judgments on custody, child support, and visitation were affirmed.

Parentage ActionAssisted ReproductionEgg DonationGestational CarrierLegal MaternityCustody DisputeChild SupportIntent TestGenetic TestConstitutional Rights
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Adoption of Anonymous

The petitioner sought certification as a qualified adoptive parent for a private placement adoption. Following a favorable home study and multiple letters of recommendation, the Family Court denied the petition twice, primarily because the petitioner resided with an unmarried adult. The appellate court reversed this decision, asserting that there is no legal barrier to adoption by a single unmarried adult and that an application cannot be rejected solely based on homosexuality. The court concluded that the record supports the petitioner's qualifications and that the certification would serve the child's best interests.

AdoptionSingle ParentParental RightsFamily LawAppellate DecisionBest Interests of ChildHomosexualityPrivate Placement AdoptionCertificationCourt Reversal
References
7
Case No. M2011-00914-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2012

Rick Earl v. Dr. Raquel Hatter, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Human Services

Married couple Rick Earl and Wanda Earl sought judicial review of a Department of Human Services decision denying their Medicaid eligibility under the “Pickle Amendment” to the Social Security Act. The Chancery Court for Davidson County affirmed this decision. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville also affirmed the judgment of the Chancery Court, adopting its opinion as its own. The court found that while Mr. Earl met some criteria for Pickle Amendment consideration, the couple's household income still exceeded the individual benefit rate for Medicaid eligibility. Mrs. Earl was deemed ineligible as she was not receiving OASDI benefits at the time.

MedicaidPickle AmendmentSocial Security ActSSIOASDIEligibilityJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationGovernment Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Langan v. St. Vincent's Hospital

John Langan sought wrongful death damages for his civil union partner, Neil Conrad Spicehandler, against St. Vincent's Hospital of New York after Conrad's death. The central issue was Langan's standing as a 'surviving spouse' under EPTL 5-4.1, which the defendant challenged due to the same-sex nature of their relationship. The Supreme Court initially denied the dismissal motion, but the appellate court reversed, affirming that New York's statutory definition of marriage, and thus 'surviving spouse,' applies exclusively to different-sex couples. Citing legal precedents like Baker v Nelson and Matter of Cooper, the court concluded that restricting marital rights to different-sex couples does not violate equal protection. The decision emphasized that any redefinition of marriage to include same-sex relationships falls within the purview of the Legislature, not the judiciary.

Wrongful deathSame-sex civil unionSurviving spouseEPTL 5-4.1Equal Protection ClauseConstitutional lawStatutory interpretationMarriage definitionJudicial precedentLegislative intent
References
13
Case No. ADJ17834281
Regular
Nov 10, 2025

JOSE MARTINEZ vs. CUSTOM PIPE COUPLING, FEDERAL INSURANCE CO.

Applicant Jose Martinez sought reconsideration of a finding that his injury did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment, as it fell under the "going and coming" rule. The WCJ's initial finding was based on a May 26, 2023 motor vehicle accident occurring while Martinez was driving a company truck home for personal use, specifically to transport scrap metal given to him by his employer. The Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, denied reconsideration, concluding that none of the exceptions to the "going and coming" rule applied, as there was no benefit to the employer for Martinez to take the company truck home once the delivery task was removed.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionSpecial Errand ExceptionAOE/COEMotor Vehicle AccidentCompany Vehicle
References
10
Case No. ADJ10829802
Regular
Apr 26, 2019

Antonio Corona vs. Custom Pipe & Coupling Company, Inc., The Hartford, Insurance Company of the West

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify findings regarding applicant Antonio Corona's industrial injury. The Board substituted new findings, confirming injury to his thoracic spine, lumbar spine, left shoulder, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, and left knee, and held the claim was not barred by the post-termination defense. The Board awarded temporary total disability from April 25, 2017, through June 8, 2017, and permanent disability at 18%, returning the matter to the trial level to resolve issues of average weekly wage, additional temporary disability periods, and an EDD lien. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, particularly regarding the credibility of the applicant's treating physician and the absence of substantial evidence to support the defense's arguments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardMachine OperatorThoracic Spine InjuryLumbar Spine InjuryLeft Shoulder InjuryBilateral Wrists InjuryBilateral Hands InjuryLeft Knee Injury
References
9
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