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

State ex rel. Dunn v. Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children

Maureen M. Dunn filed a writ of habeas corpus to regain custody of "Baby Girl" Dunn, born April 6, 1986, after executing a surrender for adoption to Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children (CHB) on May 1, 1986. The child was placed with prospective adoptive parents, John and Mary Doe, on April 10, 1986. Dunn attempted to revoke her surrender on May 21, 1986, within the 30-day period stipulated by Social Services Law § 384(5). The adoptive parents moved to dismiss or transfer the case, arguing against Supreme Court jurisdiction. The court retained jurisdiction and, following hearings, addressed Dunn's claims of fraud, duress, or coercion in the surrender's execution, which it ultimately denied despite concerns about CHB's procedures and a witness's credibility. The court also clarified the application of Social Services Law §§ 383(6) and 384(5) regarding the natural mother's rights post-surrender, ruling that Dunn lost her presumption of superiority once the child was placed in an adoptive home, requiring the custody determination to be based solely on the child's best interests. Considering the stability, financial security, and family ties of the adoptive parents versus the natural mother's temporary employment, uncertain support from the natural father, and past substance use during pregnancy, the court found it in the child's best interest to remain with the adoptive parents and be adopted by them.

AdoptionChild CustodyHabeas CorpusSurrender of Parental RightsBest Interests of the ChildParental RightsSocial Services LawRevocation of SurrenderFraudDuress
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Racha v. Vernon Racha/Vern's Truck & Diesel Service

The Workers' Compensation Board initially denied a claim for death benefits to a posthumous out-of-wedlock child, arguing a lack of dependency evidence. The appellate court reversed this decision, asserting that while acknowledgment is no longer a statutory requirement for out-of-wedlock children, evidence of a deceased parent's acknowledgment is crucial for establishing dependency, especially when the child is born after the parent's death. The court found that the undisputed testimony of the decedent acknowledging the unborn child, coupled with his plans to marry the mother and provide housing, created a presumption of dependency. This presumption was further buttressed by the mother's subsequent inability to care for the child. The case was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with this court’s decision.

DependencyPosthumous ChildOut-of-wedlock childPaternityWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial AccidentDeath BenefitsAcknowledgmentPresumption of DependencyReversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1968

In re Male Child Wilkov

In a contested adoption proceeding, the natural mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated December 17, 1968. The order had concluded that she abandoned her infant child, dismissed her application for the child's return, rejected her objection to the proposed adoption, and directed the court clerk to proceed with the adoption application. The appellate court affirmed the order, despite noting an error by the trial court regarding a social worker's communication. The trial court mistakenly believed the natural mother spoke with a hospital social worker, when in fact, the social worker had only conversed with the child's grandmother. However, the appellate court found that there was ample independent evidence to support the abandonment finding, irrespective of this factual dispute.

Adoption LawChild AbandonmentFamily Court AppealParental RightsSuffolk County Family CourtAppellate AffirmationSocial Worker TestimonyFactual ErrorEvidentiary SupportChild Custody
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1998

In re Unborn Child

The petitioner, Legal Aid Society of Suffolk County, successfully moved for summary judgment, asserting that respondent Sierra K.'s unborn child was derivatively neglected. This finding was based on Sierra K.'s history of drug abuse, her failure to comply with prior court orders for rehabilitation, and the termination of parental rights for her four previous children, with a fifth born testing positive for cocaine. The court found that Sierra K.'s continued drug use during her current pregnancy constituted a fundamental defect in her understanding of parental duties, placing the unborn child at substantial risk. The decision affirmed that an unborn child is considered a legal personality under Family Court Act article 10 and is entitled to protection from intentional acts of harm by its mother, rejecting the respondent's arguments against legal personality for the unborn. Consequently, derivative neglect was established, and a dispositional hearing was scheduled.

Unborn child rightsDerivative neglectMaternal drug abuseParental rights terminationFamily Court ActSummary judgmentFetal protectionLegal personality of fetusConstitutional lawPublic policy
References
23
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07357
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2017

Matter of Kathleen NN. (Dennis NN.)

This case involves three neglect proceedings initiated by the Sullivan County Department of Family Services and the Attorney for the Child against Dennis NN. (father), Justin EE. (mother's boyfriend), and Angelica FF. (mother) concerning Kathleen NN., an alleged neglected child. The Family Court of Sullivan County initially dismissed all three petitions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the dismissal concerning Dennis NN., finding that his actions of dropping the child during an altercation placed her in imminent danger of harm, thus granting the neglect petition against him and remitting the matter for a dispositional hearing. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissals against Justin EE. and Angelica FF., concluding that there was insufficient evidence to prove neglect or that Justin EE. was a legal custodian at the time of the incident, and that the mother's conduct did not demonstrate imminent danger to the child.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActImminent DangerParental ResponsibilitySafety Plan Non-ComplianceAppellate DivisionChild CustodyPreponderance of EvidencePhysical AltercationChild Protective Report
References
17
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01897 [215 AD3d 751]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2023

Matter of Podell v. New York State Cent. Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment

The petitioner, Kate Podell, sought to challenge an "indicated" report of child maltreatment filed against her with the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment. The report alleged that while working at a day care, Podell left a 22-month-old child unsupervised on a playground. After the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) denied her application to amend and seal the report, Podell initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The Supreme Court transferred the case to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for review. The Appellate Division ultimately confirmed OCFS's determination, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Child MaltreatmentChild AbuseCentral RegisterFair HearingAdministrative ReviewSubstantial EvidencePreponderance of EvidenceDay Care WorkerUnsupervised ChildAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coniglio v. Coniglio

This is a proceeding under New York's Uniform Support of Dependents Law (USDL) initiated to seek child support for Jennifer Coniglio from her father, the respondent. A hearing examiner initially recommended a bifurcated support order of $60 per week during the respondent's employment season and $25 per week during unemployment, based on his seasonal construction work. The respondent objected to these findings, challenging the court's jurisdiction due to a pre-existing divorce decree that included child support provisions. Judge Anthony F. Bonadio, referencing Lebedeff v Lebedeff and Nichols v Bardua, ruled that the USDL provides an additional remedy, not a modification, and affirmed the court's jurisdiction to determine support de novo, without being bound by the Supreme Court decree. Considering the approximate equal incomes of both parents, the court set a new support order for the respondent at $30 per week, to be paid through the support collection unit, and ordered him to maintain medical and dental insurance for Jennifer Coniglio as per the separation agreement.

Child Support EnforcementUniform Support of Dependents LawJurisdictional DisputeDe Novo DeterminationParental Financial ContributionSeasonal Employment IncomeUnemployment Benefits ConsiderationMedical Insurance ProvisionDivorce Decree InteractionSupport Collection Unit
References
5
Case No. ADJ7472371
Regular
Oct 19, 2016

GOLDEN DAVE DUBOISE (Deceased); DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DEATH WITHOUT DEPENDENTS UNIT; PAMELA MEGAN DUBOISE, vs. BLACK ROAD AUTO & TOW; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Department of Industrial Relations' petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the finding that Pamela Duboise was a partial dependent of the deceased employee, Golden Dave Duboise. This determination was based on evidence of past child support payments and cash gifts, establishing reliance for her maintenance. The Board distinguished this case from precedents where dependency was based solely on legal obligation without actual contributions.

Death Without Dependents UnitPamela Megan Duboisepartial dependentdeath benefitschild supportarrearageDivorce DecreeArkansas state courtWCJPetition for Reconsideration
References
4
Case No. ADJ3252798 (ANA 0407298)
Regular
Nov 02, 2011

CATALINO DIAZ (Deceased), RUBERTA DIAZ (Widow), MARGARET NATASHA DIAZ vs. PEOPLE'S CARE INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns Ruberta Diaz's claim for death benefits as the widow of Catalino Diaz, who sustained a fatal industrial injury. The initial decision awarded benefits to their minor child but denied Ruberta’s claim, finding she failed to prove dependency. Ruberta contends she is a total dependent and that the judge erred in not addressing this, or alternatively, in finding no partial dependency. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, deferred the issue of Ruberta's dependency, and returned the case to the trial level for further evidence and decision, while affirming the award to the minor child.

DependencyDeath BenefitWidow's ClaimMinor ChildPartial DependencyTotal DependencyPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJEvidence
References
1
Case No. ADJ6951586
Regular
Apr 08, 2015

MICHAEL MICHAELSON (Deceased) vs. JF SHEA, AIG CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order regarding a deceased worker's settlement. The Petitioner, Riverside County Department of Child Support Services, sought to satisfy a child support lien from the settlement allocated to dependents. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that Labor Code §4700 dictates that only accrued and unpaid compensation is payable to dependents, and a child support lien under Labor Code §4903(e) attaches only to such benefits. As there were no accrued benefits owed to the deceased applicant, the child support lien could not be satisfied from the death benefit settlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportRiverside County Department of Child Support ServicesState Bar NumbersWCAB Rule 10498SanctionsADJ6951586DeceasedJF Shea
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,145 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