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

Jastrzebski v. North Shore School District

The provided text is a dissenting opinion by Bracken, J. P., with Krausman, J., concurring. The dissent argues against the majority's decision, which seemingly allowed the 'recalcitrant worker' defense to prevail for the defendant. Bracken, J. P., asserts that the facts of the current case are virtually identical to those in *Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply*, a precedent-setting case where the Court of Appeals explicitly rejected the recalcitrant worker defense under similar circumstances involving a fall from a ladder when alternative equipment (scaffolds) was available. The dissent criticizes the majority for distinguishing *Gordon* by recasting its facts, arguing that the reported facts in *Gordon* consistently indicated scaffold availability. Therefore, the dissenting judge votes to reverse the order and judgment, grant the plaintiff judgment as a matter of law on liability, and remit the case for a trial on damages.

Recalcitrant Worker DefenseLadder SafetyScaffold SafetyWorkplace InjuryEmployer LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionCourt of AppealsPrecedentLegal Interpretation
References
2
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. 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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1981

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Newman

Plaintiff insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, mistakenly paid $9,805.66 to defendant Ruth Newman, intended for an aggregate trust fund related to her deceased husband's workers' compensation benefits. After forwarding the correct payment to the fund, Liberty Mutual sought restitution from Newman, who refused. The Workers' Compensation Board declined to intervene, stating no recourse existed under the Workers' Compensation Law for the error. Special Term initially granted summary judgment to Liberty Mutual. On appeal, the judgment was modified, with the Appellate Division agreeing it was a mistake of fact, not an overpayment of benefits, thus affirming the denial of Newman's summary judgment motion. However, the case was remitted to Special Term for a hearing to determine if ordering full restitution would cause a detrimental change in Newman's position regarding her benefits, and clarified that interest and costs should not be awarded against her.

restitutionmistake of factworkers' compensationsummary judgmentunjust enrichmentdetrimental relianceequityinsurance carrieraggregate trust fundappellate review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2009

In re Sasha B.

The case concerns an appeal from a Family Court order in Bronx County, dated June 22, 2009, which found a respondent mother neglected her child. The determination stemmed from an incident where the mother left her sleeping 11.5-year-old child alone on a subway train. The child subsequently navigated her way back to school. The appellate court affirmed the fact-finding determination of neglect, citing corroborating statements and the child's inability to get home, which indicated an imminent risk of harm. However, the appeal concerning the child's placement was dismissed as moot. A dissenting justice argued that the evidence did not establish "imminent danger" as legally defined, noting that the child safely returned to school and prior alleged incidents lacked sufficient corroboration.

Child NeglectSubway IncidentParental SupervisionImminent DangerCorroboration of EvidenceFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewMootness DoctrineDissenting OpinionChild Welfare
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2004

Quintas v. Pace University

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint against a university. The plaintiff had sought damages based on contract, tort, and retaliation theories after being denied a distinguished professorship. The court found these claims were time-barred, as they should have been brought under CPLR article 78, which has a four-month statute of limitations. Furthermore, the negligence claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law, and the retaliation claim lacked sufficient connection to protected conduct. The age discrimination claim also failed as the university's requirements were age-neutral and the denial was also based on the plaintiff's teaching performance. The court found no merit in the plaintiff's remaining arguments.

Employment LawAge DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimWorkers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissProfessorship DenialContract ClaimsTort ClaimsCPLR Article 78
References
2
Case No. RDG 124972
Regular
Apr 15, 2008

DAVID BURKE vs. CITY OF NEVADA CITY, GREGORY B. BRAGG & ASSOCIATES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award was unclear, making it difficult to distinguish stipulated facts from the WCJ's actual findings. The Board rescinded the award, returning the case for further proceedings and a clearer decision from the WCJ, particularly regarding the basis for temporary disability findings. Defendant's contentions regarding industrial injury to the psyche and permanent disability were not reached at this time.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJStipulationsIndustrial InjuryPsycheTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
1
Case No. ADJ7542144
Regular
Sep 18, 2012

BERNARDO CORTES vs. VALLEY COLLISION CENTER, SOUTHERN INSURANCE CO.

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for a back injury allegedly sustained before termination. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that the claim was barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) as a post-termination claim. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the employer had notice of the injury prior to termination or that any other statutory exceptions applied. The Board distinguished this case from prior precedent, finding the facts inapposite.

posttermination claimLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)notice of terminationnotice of injurypreponderance of the evidenceprior medical recordsdate of injurysubsequent terminationbad faith personnel actionDover v. St. Paul Travelers
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 3,193 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