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

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campbell v. Brewster

This case involves a custody dispute where a father (petitioner) sought custody of his child from the maternal grandmother (respondent) after the child's mother was tragically murdered. The Family Court granted the father's application for custody, determining that the grandmother had not demonstrated the extraordinary circumstances required to override a parent's superior right to custody. The grandmother appealed, arguing that the child's long-standing placement with her and the potential psychological impact of removal after the mother's death constituted extraordinary circumstances. However, the appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, concluding that the respondent failed to establish such circumstances and thus, the father was entitled to custody.

Custody DisputeParental RightsExtraordinary CircumstancesNonparent CustodyMaternal GrandmotherChild CustodyFamily Court AppealVisitation RightsParental FitnessAppellate Decision
References
8
Case No. ADJ1923190
Regular
Jul 19, 2010

Richard Martinez vs. SIFLING BROTHERS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

Lien claimants, Dr. Silver and Dr. Bresler, sought payment for medical services exceeding the Official Medical Fee Schedule (OMFS). They argued their services warranted higher fees due to "extraordinary circumstances" and defendant's alleged improper billing practices. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied their petitions for reconsideration, finding they failed to meet the burden of proof. The board held that lien claimants must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying fees above the OMFS and present evidence of their usual and customary fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRichard MartinezSifling BrothersZenith Insurance CompanyDavid BreslerDavid SilverSupplemental Findings and AwardOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleLien ClaimantsReconsideration
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bannister v. Bannister

This case involves an appeal concerning a child custody dispute. The natural mother, who is the petitioner, sought to regain custody of her daughter, Tracey, after leaving her with her maternal aunt (appellant) when the child was an infant. The Family Court initially granted custody to the mother, finding no extraordinary circumstances. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the extended separation and the child's attachment to the aunt constituted extraordinary circumstances, thus requiring a determination based on the child's best interests. The proceeding was remitted to the Family Court for a new hearing to evaluate the fitness and living conditions of all parties involved.

Custody DisputeParental RightsChild WelfareBest Interests of the ChildExtraordinary CircumstancesFamily Court AppealRemandVisitation RightsNonparent CustodyAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. ADJ2367528 (SFO 0509283)
Regular
Mar 22, 2011

GUILLERMO BAYLEY vs. YMCA OF THE EAST BAY, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

This case involves a dispute over the payment for a 15-day hospitalization for an industrial injury. Stanford University Medical Center, a lien claimant, sought additional payment beyond the amount calculated under the Official Medical Fee Schedule (OMFS). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 9792(c) allows for fees exceeding the OMFS if extraordinary circumstances related to the unusual nature of services rendered are proven. The case was returned to the trial level for further development of evidence regarding these extraordinary circumstances and to determine if the claimed fee is reasonable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationInpatient Hospital Fee ScheduleOfficial Medical Fee Schedule (OMFS)Extraordinary CircumstancesDiagnosis-Related Group (DRG)Reasonable FeeLabor CodeMedical Treatment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

William I. v. Schenectady County Department of Social Services

Devan J. was placed in foster care in 1978, with her natural mother, Shirleen J., actively seeking her return despite mental health challenges. Petitioners, the foster parents, initiated a custody proceeding. Family Court granted custody to petitioners, citing extraordinary circumstances like psychological bonding and lengthy separation. This appellate court reversed that decision, finding no extraordinary circumstances because the separation occurred while the mother was attempting reunification and there was insufficient evidence of severe trauma upon returning the child. The case was dismissed and remitted to Family Court for consideration of visitation rights for the petitioners.

Custody DisputeParental RightsFoster CareChild WelfarePsychological BondingExtraordinary CircumstancesBest Interests of the ChildFamily LawAppellate ReviewReversal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Renee TT. v. Britney UU.

This case involves appeals by the mother, Britney UU., from two Family Court orders concerning the custody of her three children. Initially, the children were placed in the custody of their paternal grandmother, Renee TT., due to multiple indicated reports of abuse and maltreatment by the mother. The Family Court found that extraordinary circumstances existed and awarded custody of the daughters to the paternal grandmother in February 2013, later expanding the mother's visitation rights in November 2013. The appellate court affirmed both orders, concluding that the finding of extraordinary circumstances was sound due to the mother's neglect, instability, and mental health issues. The court also determined that the custody arrangement with the paternal grandmother was in the children's best interests.

Custody DisputeFamily LawChild MaltreatmentExtraordinary CircumstancesParental UnfitnessAppellate ReviewVisitation RightsBest Interests of the ChildModification PetitionBipolar Disorder
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robertson v. Robertson

The case involves an appeal from an Ontario County Family Court order concerning child custody. The Family Court had improperly placed the burden of proof on the natural father, who was the appellant, despite finding him to be a fit parent. The court had awarded custody to the child's stepmother, the respondent, without explicitly determining if extraordinary circumstances existed, which is a prerequisite to deprive a natural parent of custody. The appellate court unanimously reversed the order, stating that if extraordinary circumstances are found, then the child's best interests, including preferences and living conditions, should guide the custody decision. The matter was remitted back to the Family Court for further proceedings, with a suggestion to update medical and social reports due to the time elapsed and changed living conditions.

Custody DisputeParental RightsExtraordinary CircumstancesBurden of ProofFamily LawChild's Best InterestRemittalAppellate ReviewStepparent Custody
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2015

Matter of Jennifer BB. v. Megan CC.

Petitioner, the maternal aunt, sought custody of her niece from respondents, the child's parents, due to alleged neglect stemming from unsanitary home conditions and unexplained injuries. Family Court initially granted temporary custody to the aunt, citing extraordinary circumstances based on persistent neglect, despite child protective services finding abuse allegations unfounded. However, the parents promptly remedied the home's conditions and demonstrated full cooperation with authorities. The appellate court reversed the Family Court's decision, determining that the transient unsanitary conditions, especially after immediate correction and the parents' plan to relocate with family support, did not constitute the "utter parental indifference and irresponsibility" required for extraordinary circumstances to disrupt parental custody. Consequently, the petition for custody was dismissed.

Custody DisputeExtraordinary CircumstancesParental RightsPersistent NeglectChild Protective ServicesFamily LawAppellate ReviewHome ConditionsParental ResponsibilityChild Welfare
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Denise K. v. King L.

This appeal concerns a 19-year-old natural mother's attempt to regain physical custody of her child born out of wedlock, whom she had previously intended to surrender for private adoption to nonparent respondents. The child has resided with the respondents since August 1985. After her overture for visitation was refused, the mother filed a custody petition in October 1985. Family Court determined that extraordinary circumstances existed, justifying the continuation of physical custody with the respondents, but allowed the mother supervised visitation. The appellate court affirmed this decision, citing the mother's initial surrender of the child, lack of maternal bonding, refusal of assistance, and inconsistent visitation as evidence of extraordinary circumstances. The court also agreed that the ultimate resolution of permanent custody was premature, providing the mother an opportunity to demonstrate her sincerity.

Child CustodyParental RightsExtraordinary CircumstancesAdoption DisputeFamily LawVisitation RightsParental FitnessNeglectChild's Best InterestFamily Court Act Article 6
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,434 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