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 Desiree X.

Karen X. left her child, Desiree X., with her live-in boyfriend, Demetrius AA., who was later found to have caused the child's vaginal injuries. Petitioner filed a child abuse petition, which Family Court dismissed on abuse grounds but sustained on neglect grounds, adjudicating Desiree X. a neglected child and placing her in petitioner's custody. Karen X. appealed the neglect finding against her. The appellate court found insufficient evidence to establish neglect by Karen X., reasoning she had no prior reason to distrust Demetrius AA. The court reversed the neglect finding against Karen X. and remitted the matter for further proceedings, but affirmed the order as modified, noting the unchallenged neglect finding against Demetrius AA. still stands.

Child NeglectChild AbuseFamily LawParental SupervisionVaginal InjuryMedical ExaminationPreponderance of EvidenceRemittalAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LIN Television Corp. v. National Ass'n of Broadcast Employees & Technicians—Communications Workers

Plaintiff LIN Television Corporation sought to vacate a labor arbitration award that reinstated employee Timothy Flynn after his termination for making threats. Defendants, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians—Communications Workers of America, counter-claimed to enforce the award. The arbitration found no "just cause" for termination, converting it to a suspension and mandating a positive psychiatric evaluation for Flynn's return. The U.S. District Court, reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment, confirmed the arbitration award. The court ruled that the award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and did not violate public policy regarding workplace safety, thereby denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendants' motion.

Labor DisputeArbitration AwardVacaturEnforcementWorkplace SafetyCollective Bargaining AgreementJust CauseEmployee TerminationMental Health EvaluationFederal Court Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Shaun X.

The case concerns a father (respondent) who appealed a Family Court decision finding him to have abused and neglected his son, Shaun X., and issuing an order of protection prohibiting contact until the child's 18th birthday. The petitioner, a social services agency, initiated the proceedings in February 1994, following a history of prior allegations and a conviction for sexual misconduct involving a niece. The Family Court sustained the allegations based on testimony from the child's mother, a social worker, and a psychologist, all indicating sexual abuse. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's findings, rejecting the respondent's contentions regarding diligent efforts and the sufficiency of the evidence. The court also upheld the order of protection, deeming it reasonable given the risks, the child's wishes, and the respondent's past failure to comply with court-ordered counseling.

Child AbuseChild NeglectSexual AbuseOrder of ProtectionSupervised VisitationFamily Court ActSocial Services LawAppellate ReviewPreponderance of EvidenceOut-of-Court Statements
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brentwood Pain & Rehabilitation Services, P.C. v. Allstate Insurance

This opinion addresses whether Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) procedures are subject to the same fee limitations as X-rays under New York's no-fault auto insurance law. Plaintiffs, a group of MRI service providers ("Providers"), argued that applying x-ray fee schedules to MRIs is improper and violates insurance contracts. Defendants, numerous insurance companies ("Insurers"), along with the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) and Department of Insurance (DOI), contended that the fee limitations for multiple diagnostic x-ray procedures (Ground Rule 3 of the WCB Fee Schedule) should also apply to MRIs. The court, deferring to the interpretations of the WCB and DOI, found their application of Ground Rule 3 to MRIs to be reasonable. Consequently, the court granted the Insurers' motion for summary judgment, denied the Providers' cross-motion for summary judgment, and denied the Providers' motion for class certification as moot.

MRIX-rayNo-Fault InsuranceFee ScheduleWorkers' Compensation BoardDepartment of InsuranceRegulatory InterpretationSummary JudgmentClass ActionDiagnostic Imaging
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Rebecca X.

This case involves appeals from six Family Court orders that adjudicated Rebecca X., Carissa Y., and Brittany Y. as abused and/or neglected children. Brittany Y. accused the respondent (her mother's boyfriend) of sexual abuse, which was corroborated by medical examinations and social worker assessments despite attempts by her mother and the respondent to influence her statements. The Family Court found clear and convincing evidence of sexual abuse and derivative neglect for her sisters. The respondent was deemed a legally responsible person due to his cohabitation and disciplinary role. The appellate court affirmed all orders, concluding that Brittany's out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated, the respondent was properly identified as legally responsible, and the findings of derivative neglect were amply supported. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were also rejected.

Sexual abuseChild neglectCorroborated testimonyDerivative findingsParental dutyMedical evidenceWitness intimidationFamily Court proceedingsAppellant rightsAbuse adjudication
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ray

The Commissioner of Social Services filed neglect petitions against June Ray concerning her two children, Laura and Darnell. The petitions alleged the mother failed to provide proper psychiatric care for Laura, who exhibited hyperactivity and emotional disturbance. Despite recommendations from school counselors and social workers, and referrals to treatment centers, the respondent consistently failed to follow through with Laura's therapy, believing nothing was wrong with her. Medical testimony confirmed Laura's emotional neglect and the need for psychiatric intervention. The court found Laura Ray to be a neglected child due to the mother's unwillingness to pursue recommended therapy, but dismissed the petition regarding Darnell Ray, citing insufficient evidence of neglect for the second child.

NeglectChild WelfareFamily Court ActEmotional NeglectPsychiatric CareParental ResponsibilityChild ProtectionMedical InterventionImpaired Emotional Health
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 08137
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2020

Matter of Dakota W. (Kimberly X.)

The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Family Court of Broome County's order terminating the parental rights of Kimberly X. and Chad W. for abandoning their three children. The parents appealed, citing due process violations due to their absence from the fact-finding hearing and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that the parents voluntarily absented themselves, and their legal representation was adequate. Furthermore, the court concluded that clear and convincing evidence supported the finding of abandonment, as the parents failed to visit or communicate with their children or the petitioning agency during the six-month statutory period. Therefore, the Family Court's decision to transfer guardianship and custody to the Broome County Department of Social Services was upheld.

abandonmentparental rights terminationdue processfoster carefact-finding hearingappellate reviewsocial services lawchildren's rightsclear and convincing evidencevisitation rights
References
15
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 05114 [129 AD3d 525]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2015

Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v. Union of Automotive Technicians

This case involves an appeal regarding an arbitration award concerning an E-Z Pass benefit for retired members of the Union of Automotive Technicians. The Supreme Court, New York County, modified the arbitration award to rule that the E-Z Pass benefit is a vested lifetime benefit. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this judgment, citing its disposition in previous appeals with similar issues. The court concluded that the Supreme Court reached the correct result based on established precedent.

Arbitration AwardE-Z Pass BenefitVested Lifetime BenefitPublic Employee UnionCollective BargainingAppellate ReviewJudicial PrecedentMemorandum of AgreementLabor DisputeAffirmance
References
3
Case No. SRO 134400, SRO 139130
Regular
Sep 11, 2007

COBY RICHARDS vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA AND G.B. BRAGG AND ASSOCIATES, CITY OF CLOVERDALE AND REMIF

The applicant, a police officer, claimed a cumulative trauma injury resulting in a brain tumor, asserting exposure to x-rays as a known carcinogen under Labor Code section 3212.1. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the finding that the applicant did not establish an industrial injury. While acknowledging the applicant's exposure to x-rays, the Board found this exposure did not present a reasonable link to the brain tumor, as per the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion that only direct radiation to the brain is a known risk factor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial injuryAstrocytomaBrain tumorCarcinogenLabor Code section 3212.1Presumption of injuryPeace officerCumulative traumaX-rays
References
7
Case No. ADJ8314520
Regular
Aug 25, 2015

EULOGIO SANCHEZ-AGUILAR vs. PODESTA PACKING, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration regarding an award of 26% permanent disability. The applicant argued the agreed medical evaluator's (AME) report lacked substantial evidence due to alleged improper communication by the defense regarding x-ray reports. However, the Board found the applicant waived any objection by agreeing to the AME's review of the x-rays and cooperating with their creation. Furthermore, the Board agreed with the trial judge that the applicant failed to demonstrate how any purportedly unreviewed medical reports would have changed the AME's opinion.

Eulogio Sanchez-AguilarPodesta PackingU.S. Fire Insurance CompanyADJ8314520Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAwardand OrdersWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJ
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 225 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