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 Jeanne TT.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County that adjudicated the respondent a person in need of supervision (PINS) and placed her in the custody of the petitioner for 18 months. The PINS adjudication stemmed from the respondent absconding from treatment facilities on three occasions after being removed from her mother's home due to a prior neglect proceeding. The respondent argued that the Family Court abused its discretion by not substituting a neglect petition for the PINS petition and that testimony from social workers violated client-social worker privilege. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion, noting the respondent's behavior was not attributable to parental abuse and occurred while she was in residential treatment. It also ruled that the client-social worker privilege did not apply to the evidence presented, as the communications were not made to a certified social worker or intended to be confidential. Finally, the court affirmed the dispositional order, finding placement necessary given the respondent's history of incorrigible behavior and her mother's surrender of parental rights.

Family Court ActPINS proceedingPerson in Need of SupervisionClient-social worker privilegeCPLR 4508AbscondingPlacement orderAdjournment in contemplation of dismissalNeglect proceedingParental rights surrender
References
7
Case No. ADJ426447 (RDG 0129495)
Regular
Jul 16, 2010

Shane Guest vs. Barrett Business Services

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as he was not aggrieved by a final order. The applicant sought to set aside a settlement concerning the Employment Development Department's (EDD) lien, arguing it was made in error. However, the Board found that the WCJ had not yet made a final determination on the EDD lien, which is a prerequisite for the Board to have jurisdiction to approve or disapprove such a settlement. Therefore, the matter is returned to the trial level for a final determination of the EDD's lien.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalEDD LienTrial LevelFinal DeterminationTemporary DisabilityEmployment Development DepartmentStipulationDeferred Lien
References
1
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07068 [165 AD3d 551]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2018

Matter of Franco v. Dweck

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, which was entered upon a partial final arbitration award in petitioners' favor. The appeals from prior orders granting the petition to confirm and denying the respondents' motion to vacate were dismissed as subsumed. A subsequent judgment entered upon a final arbitration award of attorneys' fees to petitioners was also affirmed. The court found that respondents' compliance with the partial final arbitration award's mandatory injunction rendered their appeal moot. It also concluded that respondents waived objections to the arbitration scope and that their contentions regarding preconditions to arbitrability, adjudication of third-party rights, and arbitrator partiality were without merit. The court also upheld the arbitrator's decision not to dissolve corporate entities and found the attorney fee award reasonable.

Arbitration AwardMootnessWaiver of ObjectionsArbitrabilityCorporate AgreementsArbitrator PartialityFunctus OfficioAttorneys' FeesJudicial ReviewAppellate Division First Department
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Wilinston BB

This appeal stems from a Family Court order in Albany County, adjudicating the respondent a juvenile delinquent. The respondent contested the Family Court's decision not to suppress his written confession, arguing it was involuntarily made. The appellate court, however, affirmed the Family Court's ruling, finding no evidence of coercion during police questioning and noting the appropriate handling of the respondent's mother's presence. While acknowledging certain evidentiary errors by the Family Court, the appellate panel deemed them harmless given the overwhelming evidence of the respondent's guilt. Consequently, the original order of juvenile delinquency adjudication was affirmed.

juvenile delinquencyconfessionsuppression of evidenceinvoluntary confessionFamily Court Actevidentiary rulingsharmless errorrape first degreesodomy first degreepolice questioning
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Visa U.S.A. Inc.

This civil action, brought by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice against Visa and MasterCard, alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act concerning governance and exclusionary rules. Following an earlier decision finding exclusionary rules anti-competitive, this Opinion addresses various proposed modifications to the court's Proposed Final Judgment. The court rejected anti-discrimination provisions and the exclusion of corporate and small business cards from the remedy. It clarified provisions regarding dual issuance of debit cards, the liability of Visa International, and modified the rescission period for agreements. Additionally, the court specified that MasterCard's Competitive Programs Policy repeal applies only to issuers. The Final Judgment is set to expire in ten years.

Antitrust LawSherman ActCredit Card NetworksDebit Card ExclusivityFinal Judgment ModificationMarket CompetitionExclusionary PracticesFinancial ServicesCorporate CardsSmall Business Cards
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jeffrey D.

Petitioner filed a petition under Family Court Act article 10, alleging child abuse and neglect of respondents' three-month-old son, Jeffrey. Initial allegations involved scalding and bruises, later supplemented with claims of numerous fractured ribs following further medical examinations. The Family Court found no abuse but adjudicated the child neglected. The mother appealed, but the Appellate Court rejected the mootness argument, citing the permanent stigma of a neglect adjudication. Based on expert medical testimony from Dr. Louise Godine, who identified nine fractured ribs indicative of forceful squeezing and determined the injuries predated the scalding, the Appellate Court affirmed the Family Court's finding. The court noted the parents' failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the injuries, allowing for strong adverse inferences.

Child Neglect AdjudicationFamily Court Act Article 10Infant Rib FracturesScalding InjuriesMedical Expert TestimonyPreponderance of Evidence StandardMootness Doctrine ApplicationParental Explanations DiscreditedAdverse InferencesAppellate Affirmation
References
9
Case No. ADJ10525348
Regular
Sep 09, 2019

ENRIQUE MATA vs. HARTWICK \u0026 HAND, INC.; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, administered by CORVEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Enrique Mata's Petition for Reconsideration and dismissed his Petition for Removal. The WCAB adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge, stating that reconsideration is an adequate remedy for final orders that determine substantive rights or threshold issues. Since the trial level adjudication of an Independent Medical Review (IMR) appeal is considered a final order, removal was deemed inappropriate.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCAB Rule 10843Final OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueIMR DeterminationAdministrative DirectorWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge
References
4
Case No. ADJ9437585
Regular
May 04, 2015

JUANA CASTANEYRA vs. GARZA CONTRACTING, CALIFORNIA FARM MANAGEMENT, INTERCARE

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the prior order was not a final determination of substantive rights. The Board granted removal on its own motion to correct an incomplete adjudication of the Medical Provider Network (MPN) dispute. The WCJ prematurely found the applicant was not required to treat within the MPN without addressing the employer's liability for self-procured treatment. The case is returned to the trial level for full adjudication of the MPN issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPNPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeWCJSelf-procured treatmentExpedited hearing
References
3
Case No. ADJ6596506
Regular
May 14, 2012

ARACELI GARCIA vs. AMERICAN FOAM PACKAGING/AMFOAM; UEBTF

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because she was not a party aggrieved by the Supplemental Findings and Order. The applicant had previously settled her claim with the defendant via a Compromise & Release, agreeing that all liens would be handled by the defendant. The Supplemental Findings and Order only adjudicated the liens, leaving the applicant's separate claim for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits undetermined. Therefore, the applicant's rights and liabilities concerning the defendant were already finalized, and the F&O did not constitute a final order as to her.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental Findings and OrderArising Out of and In the Course of Employment (AOE/COE)Post-termination claimLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Lien claimantsCompromise & Release (C&R)Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF)Cumulative trauma injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 1999

People v. Victor J.

Defendant Victor J. was charged with child sexual abuse spanning his minority and adulthood, prompting questions about the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and his eligibility for youthful offender treatment. The court found it had jurisdiction over the continuous offenses and considered defendant's history as a child sexual abuse victim as a mitigating circumstance directly related to his conduct. This finding qualified him as an "eligible youth" under CPL 720.10 (3) (i), despite the prosecution's opposition. Exercising its discretion, the court granted youthful offender adjudications for counts committed as an adult and juvenile delinquent adjudications for those committed as a minor. The final decision included withdrawing his sex offender certification and imposing a probationary sentence with mandated therapeutic intervention, prioritizing rehabilitation over adult incarceration.

Child Sexual AbuseYouthful Offender StatusCriminal JurisdictionMitigating CircumstancesJuvenile DelinquencyContinuing OffenseSexual Abuse VictimizationPsychological AssessmentProbationary SentenceSex Offender Registration Act (SORA)
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 3,224 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