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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This case addresses the extent to which a psychiatrist can rely on out-of-court materials, such as presentence reports and parole records, to establish a history of sex offenses for a "mental abnormality" diagnosis in a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding. The petitioner's expert psychiatrist diagnosed respondent Mr. A. with pedophilia, paraphilia n.o.s., and antisocial personality disorder, relying on various criminal history documents. The diagnosis of pedophilia specifically hinged on two 1961 incidents, whose underlying facts were challenged by the respondent as unreliable hearsay. The court analyzed the professional reliability and business record exceptions to the hearsay rule, finding that documents supporting 1980 and 1992 convictions were reliable due to corroboration. However, the reports for the 1961 convictions were deemed unreliable, lacking sufficient indicia of reliability, contemporaneity, and unchallengeable contents. Consequently, the court disregarded and excluded the expert's conclusion of pedophilia, as it was solely based on these unreliable hearsay documents, while affirming the reliance on other, more reliable evidence.

Mental Hygiene Law Article 10Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (SOMTA)Expert TestimonyHearsay EvidenceProfessional Reliability ExceptionBusiness Records ExceptionPsychiatric DiagnosisPedophiliaPresentence ReportsParole Records
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1973

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of a special exception permit for an automobile body and fender repair shop. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, annulled the denial and directed the issuance of the permit. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the appellants' original determination and dismissing the petition. The appellate court found that the appellants' denial was supported by evidence of potential noise, fumes, visual blight from wrecked cars, the residential nature of the vicinity, and the severe negative impact on a neighboring medical practice. The court concluded that the proposed use failed to meet the standards for a special exception permit.

Special Exception PermitZoning DenialAutomobile Repair ShopNuisanceResidential CharacterMedical Practice ImpactCPLR Article 78Abuse of Discretion ReviewProperty ValueAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 1989

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case involved a father's petition to terminate the mother's visitation rights with their 8-year-old child, leading to an order for supervised visitation. The child, born out of wedlock in 1983, made allegations in 1988 that his mother used cocaine in his presence. The Family Court admitted hearsay testimony from witnesses regarding these allegations, citing Family Court Act § 1046 as an exception for abuse and neglect cases. The mother appealed, arguing the testimony was inadmissible hearsay. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding the testimony properly received and corroboration present.

Family Court ActChild Visitation RightsTermination of Parental RightsChild Abuse AllegationsHearsay ExceptionSupervised VisitationOut-of-Wedlock ChildCustody DisputeParental ConductCocaine Use Allegations
References
3
Case No. 07-11-00389-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2012

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Kristopher Bluntzer appealed the revocation of his community supervision and a two-year sentence for two counts of theft. He argued that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting 'chronos' (supervision records) as hearsay. The appellate court found that the 'chronos' were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Furthermore, independent testimony from his fiancée and uncle sufficiently proved several violations of community supervision conditions. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, modifying it to explicitly state that community supervision was revoked for both counts with concurrent two-year state jail sentences.

Community Supervision RevocationTheftHearsay ExceptionBusiness RecordsSufficiency of EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureOral PronouncementWritten Judgment Discrepancy
References
10
Case No. 14-12-00378-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2013

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Orlando Salinas appealed his conviction for injury to an elderly person, which resulted in a five-year prison sentence. His appeal presented three main contentions: the trial court erred by allowing expert testimony on victim recantation, admitting hearsay under the excited utterance exception, and assessing an unconstitutional court cost. The appellate court rejected all of Salinas's arguments. It found no abuse of discretion in admitting the expert testimony or the hearsay evidence, and it affirmed the constitutionality of the consolidated court cost, noting the appellant failed to meet his burden for a facial challenge and the valid uses of funds were severable. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Criminal AppealInjury to ElderlyVictim RecantationExpert Witness TestimonyHearsay ExceptionExcited UtteranceCourt CostsConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersAppellate Procedure
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case, presided over by Justice Paula J. Hepner, addresses the admissibility of out-of-court hearsay statements made by a child in a motion to modify an existing joint custody order. The petitioner sought to introduce such statements through witness testimony, which the respondent objected to. The court examined existing case law, noting that while the 'traditional requirements of the adversary system' may be relaxed in custody cases, there is no specific statutory or judicial exception for admitting a child's hearsay statements in custody proceedings unless the allegations are based on abuse or neglect. The court distinguished this case from those involving abuse or neglect, aligning with Ponzini v Ponzini, and ruled that since the modification petition does not allege abuse or neglect, the child's out-of-court statements are not admissible.

CustodyHearsay EvidenceChild StatementsFamily LawModification of CustodyAdmissibility of EvidenceAbuse and NeglectFamily Court ActJoint CustodyJudicial Precedent
References
22
Case No. 2005 NY Slip Op 25220
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2005

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This Family Court case addresses the admissibility of a child's out-of-court statements in a custody modification proceeding. Petitioner Jacqueline B. sought to modify an existing joint custody order with respondent Peter K. The central question was whether the child's hearsay statements, relating to issues like communication problems and incompatible parenting styles—but not allegations of abuse or neglect—could be admitted into evidence. Presiding Justice Paula J. Hepner reviewed established case law, including _Ponzini v Ponzini_, and concluded that without specific allegations of abuse or neglect, hearsay statements from a child are inadmissible in custody proceedings under Article 6 of the Family Court Act. The court distinguished this scenario from child protective proceedings where such exceptions might apply and ruled that the child's statements were not admissible.

Custody ModificationHearsay AdmissibilityChild Witness StatementsFamily Court ProceedingsEvidentiary RulesParental RightsAbuse and Neglect AllegationsDue ProcessJoint CustodyLaw Guardian Role
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This contested special proceeding, commenced under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60, sought the continuation of an assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) order for respondent Joan W. The court addressed three primary issues: the admissibility of hearsay statements from non-parties in hospital records, a motion to quash a subpoena for the respondent’s expert witness's notes, and the continuation of the AOT plan. The court ruled that hearsay statements relevant to diagnosis and treatment are admissible under the business records exception, extending the People v Ortega holding to Mental Hygiene Law hearings. Additionally, the motion to quash the subpoena for the expert’s notes was denied, as the respondent waived privilege by placing her condition in controversy. Ultimately, with the respondent's consent, the court granted the continuation of the AOT order for one year, retroactive to September 23, 2011.

Assisted Outpatient TreatmentMental Hygiene LawHearsay AdmissibilityBusiness Records ExceptionHospital RecordsMedical Diagnosis and TreatmentSocial Worker-Client PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeSubpoena QuashalKendra's Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 1998

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a lower court's denial of the defendants' motion for a new trial on liability. The central issue on appeal was the trial court's refusal to admit a hospital triage report into evidence. The report contained conflicting accounts of how the plaintiff sustained injuries, specifically whether she fell from a fire escape or jumped from a window to escape a fire, both from a height of eight feet. The court found the report inadmissible under both the business entry exception to the hearsay rule and as an admission against interest. This was due to the defendants' failure to prove that the plaintiff was the direct source of the recorded information, as the plaintiff spoke only Spanish and the nurse relied on unidentified EMS workers and a hospital translator. Furthermore, the court noted that the cause of the injury was not pertinent to the plaintiff's diagnosis or treatment, which further precluded its admission under the business records exception. The defendants' argument that the translator acted as the plaintiff's agent was also rejected as lacking factual support.

Hearsay RuleBusiness Entry ExceptionAdmission Against InterestHospital Triage ReportMedical Records AdmissibilityTranslation AccuracyInterpreter CompetencyCause of InjuryNew Trial MotionAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The libelant, employed as a stowman on Float No. 187, was injured due to the vessel's unseaworthy condition and subsequently filed a libel. This action follows a previous case where the libelant sued his employer, Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, for the same injuries. In that prior action, the complaint was dismissed, with Judge J. Edward Lumbard ruling that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy. Citing a similar precedent, the court in the present case sustained the respondent's exceptions to the libel, leading to its dismissal.

Seaman InjuryUnseaworthinessLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyAdmiralty LawMaritime LawLibelExceptionsCase DismissalFederal District Court
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,303 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