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
Jul 27, 1992

In re Latisha W.

This case involves an appeal by a mother and father from a Family Court order that found they had abused their children, Latisha W. and Samura W., in a child protective proceeding. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the Commissioner of Social Services had established child abuse by a preponderance of the evidence. The decision relied on the detailed, cross-corroborated out-of-court statements made by both children regarding the abuse. Further corroboration came from a social worker's testimony, which noted the children's consistent statements, bed-wetting, and inappropriate sexual behavior. Additionally, a prima facie case of abuse was established against the mother for failing to protect the children and warning them not to disclose the abuse, which she failed to rebut.

Child abuseParental neglectCorroborated statementsFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate reviewChild witnessesPreponderance of evidenceKings County Family CourtOut-of-court statementsSocial worker testimony
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25024
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2025

Matter of W.S. v. G.S.

The petitioner (W.S.) filed a family offense petition against the respondent (G.S.), his sister, alleging harassment in the second degree. W.S. claimed G.S. threatened 'further consequences' and made false statements in a Mental Hygiene Law article 9 petition, leading to W.S.'s arrest. G.S. argued her statements were privileged and made due to genuine fear and concerns about W.S.'s mental health and hoarding. The court held that communications made in support of a Mental Hygiene Law petition are subject to a qualified privilege and serve a 'legitimate purpose' unless made with knowing/reckless disregard of falsity and solely to alarm/annoy. The court found W.S. failed to prove G.S.'s statements met this higher standard or that her other alleged actions constituted harassment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Family OffenseHarassment Second DegreeMental Hygiene Law Article 9Qualified PrivilegeLegitimate Purpose DefenseIntent to HarassBurden of ProofCredibility of WitnessesStatements to PoliceMalice Standard
References
22
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02831 [238 AD3d 1302]
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2025

Matter of Coyle v. W & W Steel Erectors LLC

This case involves an appeal by W & W Steel Erectors LLC and its workers' compensation carrier from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board denied the carrier's request to reopen the claim concerning posthumous wage-loss benefits for the minor son of the decedent, Michael Coyle. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits to the son, relying on Matter of Green, and the carrier failed to seek administrative review. After the Court of Appeals reversed Green, the carrier sought to reopen the claim, but the Board denied this request due to the lack of a timely administrative appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the reopening of the claim in the interest of justice.

Workers' CompensationWage-loss benefitsPermanent partial disabilityPosthumous benefitsReopening claimAdministrative reviewAbuse of discretionFinality of decisionAppellate DivisionCourt of Appeals reversal
References
13
Case No. 2-06-191-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2008

in the Interest of D.W., T.W., and S.G., Children

Appellant Betty W. appealed a final order terminating her parental rights to her three children. She raised four issues: the constitutionality of a one-year dismissal deadline, the denial of her motion to extend that deadline, the constitutionality of a statute barring appellate review of unlisted issues (section 263.405(i)), and a due process violation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, finding that Betty failed to preserve her first issue, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to extend the deadline. However, the court held that section 263.405(i) violated the Separation of Powers Clause of the Texas Constitution. Ultimately, the order terminating parental rights was affirmed as Betty did not provide a record for her second issue.

Parental Rights TerminationSeparation of PowersAppellate ProcedureTexas Family CodeDue ProcessChild WelfareAbuse of DiscretionJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationConstitutional Law
References
123
Case No. 2-06-191-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2008

In Re DW

Betty W. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three children, D.W., T.W., and S.G. She challenges the constitutionality of the one-year dismissal deadline under the Texas Family Code, the denial of her motion to extend this deadline, and the constitutionality of a provision barring appellate review of issues not listed in a statement of points. The Court of Appeals, Fort Worth, overrules her first issue due to lack of preservation. It holds the provision barring review of unlisted issues unconstitutional as a violation of the Separation of Powers Clause of the Texas Constitution. However, the court affirms the trial court's denial of Betty's motion to extend the dismissal deadline, finding no abuse of discretion. Consequently, the final order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

Parental Rights TerminationTexas Family CodeAppellate ProcedureSeparation of PowersConstitutional LawDue ProcessAbuse of DiscretionChild AbuseFoster CareExtension of Time
References
87
Case No. 03-01-00084-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2002

John W. Berkel and John W. Berkel, P.C./Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association/John W. Berkel and John W. Berkel, P.C.

This case involves cross-appeals from a judgment by the District Court of Travis County. John W. Berkel and John W. Berkel, P.C. (Berkel) sued the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA) and a receiver, seeking to enforce a contract for $6,306, which represented a previously approved "covered claim" for legal services. The trial court awarded Berkel the $6,306 but denied claims for statutory attorney's fees, prejudgment, and postjudgment interest. TPCIGA appealed the $6,306 award, arguing the claim was not a covered claim, but the appellate court affirmed this part, holding the Receiver's prior determination was binding. Berkel appealed the denial of attorney's fees and interest, and the appellate court reversed and remanded this part for further proceedings.

Insurance LawReceivershipImpaired InsurerCovered ClaimsStatutory InterpretationAttorney's FeesPrejudgment InterestPostjudgment InterestSummary JudgmentContract Enforcement
References
9
Case No. action No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

U.W. Marx, Inc. v. Koko Contracting, Inc.

Koko Contracting, Inc., a subcontractor, ceased work on a school construction project after U.W. Marx, Inc., the general contractor, failed to make three successive progress payments. Marx declared Koko in default and terminated the contract. In action No. 2, the Supreme Court found in favor of Koko, ruling that Marx's failure to pay was a material breach of contract. Marx and its surety, Continental Casualty Company, appealed, arguing Koko's recovery was precluded by its failure to provide seven days' written notice before suspending work as required by the subcontract. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that Marx's prior material breach relieved Koko from its obligation to strictly comply with the notice provision, as the clause was primarily for the subcontractor's benefit regarding remobilization costs.

Construction ContractMaterial BreachNonpaymentSubcontractorGeneral ContractorAppealNotice to CureSuspension of WorkContract PerformanceContractual Obligations
References
9
Case No. 2-06-472-CV, 2-07-048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2009

in Re Gerald W. Haddock

Gerald W. Haddock filed a consolidated interlocutory appeal and mandamus proceeding challenging a trial court's order staying arbitration. Haddock initiated arbitration against William F. Quinn, Paul E. Rowsey, III, John Goff, Terry N. Worrell, Crescent Real Estate Equities Company (CEI), Crescent Real Estate Equities Limited Partnership (CREELP), and Crescent Real Estate Equities, Limited (CREE) after previously litigating related claims in court. The core issue was whether Haddock waived his right to arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process in a prior lawsuit concerning his options and alleged mismanagement by the Crescent Entities. The court determined it had jurisdiction to decide the waiver issue, rejecting Haddock's argument that the incorporation of AAA rules delegated this to an arbitrator. The court found that Haddock's extensive litigation, including seeking injunctive relief and summary judgment in the prior suit, constituted a substantial invocation of the judicial process. This prejudiced the defendants by forcing them to incur significant expenses. Consequently, the court held that Haddock waived his right to arbitrate these claims. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus and dismissed the interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction.

ArbitrationWaiverJudicial ProcessFederal Arbitration ActContract InterpretationPrejudiceLitigation ConductOption ClaimsSeverance AgreementLimited Partnership Agreement
References
62
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00959 [147 AD3d 815]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Gonsalves v. 35 W. 54 Realty Corp.

The plaintiffs, Andrew Gonsalves and Shahazad M. Rasheed, sustained personal injuries at a construction site managed by Geiger Construction Company, Inc. and owned by 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. when a parapet wall collapsed during the lowering of a power washer. They sued 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. and Perimeter Bridge & Scaffold Co. for Labor Law violations. 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. then initiated third-party actions against Geiger Construction for contribution and common-law indemnification. After a jury found Geiger Construction negligent, the Supreme Court denied Geiger Construction's motions for judgment as a matter of law. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed these judgments, concluding that there was no rational basis for the jury to find Geiger Construction negligent, as 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence against them. Consequently, the third-party causes of action against Geiger Construction were dismissed.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawNegligenceContributionIndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewJudgment as a Matter of LawJury Verdict
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00600
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2020

Matter of Sean CJ Ivan W. (Danica W.)

This case concerns an appeal by the mother, Danica W., from an order terminating her parental rights to her child, Noel Sean CJ Ivan W. The Family Court, Queens County, found that the mother permanently neglected the child and transferred guardianship and custody to Little Flower Children and Family Services of New York and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for adoption. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that the petitioner demonstrated diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship. However, the mother failed to adequately plan for the child's future despite these efforts. The appellate court also agreed that terminating parental rights and freeing the child for adoption was in the child's best interests, rejecting a suspended judgment.

Parental RightsPermanent NeglectChild WelfareAdoptionFamily LawAppellate DivisionGuardianshipDiligent EffortsBest Interests of ChildSocial Services Law
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 5,621 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