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. 2016 NY Slip Op 08114
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2016

Matter of Kent D. (Rachel D.)

Petitioner Kent D. appealed an order from Family Court, New York County, which denied his motion for a forensic evaluation and granted the cross motion to dismiss his petition for visitation with his child. The background reveals that in February 2008, Kent D. stabbed Rachel D., the mother, seven times in front of their child, leading to his conviction for assault and child endangerment and an 11-year prison sentence. A 19-year order of protection was issued, prohibiting contact with the child. The Family Court had previously awarded custody to the mother, and a 2012 divorce judgment affirmed no visitation rights for Kent D. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that Kent D. failed to make an evidentiary showing of changed circumstances required for a visitation hearing, and his claims of completing an anger management program were unsubstantiated. The court also noted the child's continuing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and desire not to see him.

Visitation RightsChild CustodyOrder of ProtectionDomestic ViolenceAssault ConvictionChanged CircumstancesForensic EvaluationAppellate ReviewFamily LawPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1986

In re Moises D.

This appeal arises from an amended order of the Family Court, Kings County, which dismissed petitions alleging that Moisés D. and Noami D. were neglected children. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, adjudicating Moisés D. and Noami D. as neglected children and remitting the matter for a dispositional hearing. The evidence detailed the father's history of paranoid schizophrenia and past instances of severe abuse and neglect towards his other children, including physical violence and a dangerous incident with an autistic son. The mother was found to have failed to protect the children and demonstrated a faulty understanding of parental duties, leading the court to conclude a substantial risk of harm to Moisés D. and Noami D. without supervision. The decision emphasized the necessity of a dispositional hearing to determine the children's well-being and maintain family integrity.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActParental RightsMental IllnessParanoid SchizophreniaChild AbuseAppellate ReviewDispositional HearingRisk AssessmentParental Fitness
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00935 [180 AD3d 1331]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2020

Matter of Emma D. (Kelly v. D.)

This case involves two appeals concerning Emma D. In Appeal No. 1, the Ontario County Department of Social Services (DSS) initiated a neglect proceeding against the mother, Kelly V.(D.). The mother's motion to change venue to Monroe County was denied due to her refusal to provide her actual residence. In Appeal No. 2, the grandmother, Margarita D., commenced a custody proceeding against the mother. Custody was granted to the grandmother, supported by findings of extraordinary circumstances including the mother's neglect, unstable living situation, mental health issues, and failure to address the child's special needs. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed both orders, including the supervised visitation arrangement between the mother and grandmother.

Child NeglectCustody DisputeFamily Court ActVenue ChangeExtraordinary CircumstancesSupervised VisitationParental RightsChild WelfareAppellate ReviewParental Fitness
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A.D. v. Board of Education of the City School District

Plaintiffs A.D. and M.D., on behalf of their minor child E.D., brought an action under the IDEA to review a State Review Officer's (SRO) decision. The SRO had reversed an Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) award of tuition reimbursement for E.D.'s attendance at the private Rebecca School, despite agreeing that the New York City Department of Education (DOE) failed to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The District Court reversed the SRO's finding that Rebecca School was an inappropriate placement, concluding that the school's individualized program was designed to meet E.D.'s unique needs. Consequently, the Court ordered the DOE to reimburse tuition for July 2007 through June 2008, totaling $62,590, but denied reimbursement for July and August 2008 due to unexhausted administrative remedies. The Court also granted defendants' motion to strike certain evidentiary materials submitted by plaintiffs.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActIDEAFree Appropriate Public EducationFAPETuition ReimbursementPrivate School PlacementSpecial EducationAutism Spectrum DisorderImpartial Hearing OfficerState Review Officer
References
31
Case No. NN-5890-05/06A
Regular Panel Decision

In re D.A.

The Onondaga County Department of Social Services petitioned to modify a dispositional order for child D.A., seeking placement with a maternal aunt, T.S., instead of the foster parent, D.L. Concurrently, D.L. and T.S. filed custody petitions. The court consolidated the matters, hearing extensive testimony regarding D.A.'s bond with D.L., Ms. S.'s inconsistent visitation, and the parents' neglect history. The court denied the County's modification application, finding no good cause and emphasizing D.A.'s strong bond and stability with D.L. It further directed the County to initiate proceedings for the termination of parental rights and dismissed both D.L.'s and T.S.'s custody petitions due to lack of standing.

Child NeglectFoster CareChild CustodyParental Rights TerminationFamily Court ActDispositional Order ModificationBest Interests of the ChildPermanency PlanningKinship PlacementOnondaga County
References
6
Case No. LAO 854258
Regular
Aug 24, 2007

BERTHA MACIAS vs. CUSTOM DESIGN, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The Appeals Board denied the petition, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that the applicant's cumulative injury claim was not barred by the post-termination provisions of Labor Code § 3600(a)(10). This decision was based on the exception in § 3600(a)(10)(D), which states that a claim is valid if the date of injury, as defined by the date of disability and knowledge of its industrial cause, occurred after the notice of termination.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjuryUpper ExtremitiesLower ExtremitiesSpinePsychePost-Termination DefenseLabor Code § 3600(a)(10)(D)Date of InjurySection 5412
References
3
Case No. NN-5890-05/06A
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2007

Matter of D.A.

This case concerns D.A., a child born cocaine positive and adjudicated neglected, who has been in foster care with D.L. since birth. The Onondaga County Department of Social Services petitioned to modify a dispositional order, seeking to place D.A. with her maternal aunt, T.S., while D.L. and T.S. also filed separate custody petitions. The court denied the County's application to modify placement, concluding that removing D.A. from D.L., with whom she had formed a strong bond, would cause severe distress and was not in the child's best interests. Consequently, D.A.'s placement with the Onondaga County Commissioner of Social Services in foster care with D.L. was continued. Furthermore, the court directed the County to file a petition for the termination of the biological parents' parental rights due to the child's extended time in foster care, and dismissed both custody petitions for lack of standing.

Child NeglectChild CustodyFoster CareParental Rights TerminationFamily Court Act Article 10Modification of Dispositional OrderBest Interests of ChildPermanency PlanningInterstate Compact on the Placement of ChildrenLaw Guardian
References
6
Case No. ADJ9908298
Regular
Jul 25, 2016

ELIZABETH SOTO vs. MOLEX, INC. dba AFFINITY MEDICAL, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to clarify a previous order, rescinding the original Findings and Order. The defendant argued the claim was barred by the post-termination defense, but the WCAB found exceptions applied under Labor Code sections 3600(a)(10)(A) and 3600(a)(10)(D). The WCAB determined the date of injury was March 5, 2015, subsequent to the termination notice, and returned the case for further proceedings to develop the medical record regarding the extent of the applicant's injuries.

post-termination defenseLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)(D)Labor Code section 5412cumulative traumacompensable disabilityknowledge of industrial causationdate of injurynotice of terminationU.S. HealthWorks
References
7
Case No. ADJ6757162
Regular
Dec 14, 2016

JOSEPH BRABANDER vs. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

This case concerns defendant Cedars-Sinai's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation finding. The administrative law judge found the applicant's cumulative trauma claim, filed after his layoff notice, was not barred by the statute of limitations or Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). The Board denied reconsideration, agreeing that the applicant's date of injury, determined by when he suffered disability and knew it was work-related, occurred after his layoff notice. Therefore, exception (D) to Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) applied.

cumulative traumaStatute of LimitationsLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination claimspreponderance of the evidencenotice of terminationlayoffknowledge of injurydisabilityoccupational diseases
References
2
Case No. ADJ6968776
Regular
Apr 29, 2013

MARTHA IBARRA vs. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES, INC.

This case involves Martha Ibarra's cumulative trauma injury claim against 99 Cents Only Stores. The defendant sought to bar the claim under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) as a post-termination injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that while the specific condition of prior medical records for the cumulative trauma injury was not met, the injury date being subsequent to notice of termination, as defined by Labor Code section 5412, satisfied the exception under section 3600(a)(10)(D). The Board amended the Findings of Fact to reflect this, affirmed the finding of injury to the upper extremities and spine, and returned the case for further proceedings, while deferring the issue of psychological injury.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)Labor Code section 3208.3(e)Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactCumulative Trauma InjuryUpper ExtremitiesSpinePsycheAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Whole Person Impairment (WPI)
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,900 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