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 Thea T.

The Suffolk County Attorney's Office, on behalf of Suffolk County Child Protective Services, filed an application seeking an order to direct the Law Guardian to permit a third interview of 11-year-old Thea T., who alleges sexual abuse by her father. The County also sought the Law Guardian's cooperation with pretrial preparation. The Law Guardian opposed the request for a third interview, citing potential harm to the child, who had already undergone two previous interviews. The court applied a two-prong test, weighing the County's asserted need against the potential harm to the child. Finding the County's justification for a third interview conclusory and lacking an articulable basis, and balancing this against the potential for intimidation and embarrassment to the child, the court denied both applications.

Child Protective ServicesChild InterviewLaw Guardian RoleFamily Court ActDiscovery DisputePretrial PreparationChild WelfareVulnerable WitnessEvidentiary StandardBalancing Test
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2002

In re the Claim of Kearse

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which upheld its prior ruling that the claimant's request for a hearing was untimely. The claimant had been disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits due to misconduct and charged with an overpayment, but failed to request a review hearing for several months, mistakenly believing her workers' compensation case was related. The Board, upon reconsideration, adhered to its finding that the request was untimely. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that a claimant typically has 30 days to request a hearing unless there is a valid excuse. The court also declined to consider the claimant's belated assertions of post-traumatic stress disorder as a justification for the delay.

Unemployment BenefitsUntimely RequestMisconduct DischargeOverpaymentWorkers' CompensationPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderAppellate ReviewHearing TimelinessAdministrative DecisionNew York Appellate Division
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re K.M.

The New York County District Attorney's Office (DA) filed an ex parte application for a subpoena duces tecum seeking K.M.'s psychiatric records and access to treating hospital staff. K.M. was committed to the Commissioner of Mental Health after pleading not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect. The court granted the DA's request for K.M.'s psychiatric records but denied the request to interview treating psychiatrists and psychologists, citing psychotherapist-patient privilege. The court found that the interests of justice did not significantly outweigh K.M.'s right to confidentiality, suggesting that the DA could interview a member of Kirby's Psychiatric Committee instead.

Mental HealthPsychiatric RecordsSubpoena Duces TecumPsychotherapist-Patient PrivilegeConfidentialityCPL 330.20Dangerous Mental ConditionWaiver of PrivilegeNew York LawCriminal Procedure Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Domanico v. Woodmere Fire District

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 4, 2005, which denied an employer's request for reimbursement of wages paid to a claimant during a period of disability. The court examined whether a June 24, 2004 notice, issued by the self-insured employer, Woodmere Fire District, containing language about reimbursement, was sufficient as a request under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a). The court found the notice to be sufficient in form. However, a critical issue remained regarding the timeliness of this request; specifically, whether it was filed prior to the compensation award made at the January 7, 2005 hearing. Due to this unresolved issue, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings to determine the timeliness of the reimbursement request.

Workers' Compensation ReimbursementEmployer Wage ReimbursementDisability WagesTimeliness of Reimbursement RequestWorkers' Compensation LawBoard Decision AppealJudicial ReversalRemittal for Further ProceedingsNew York Workers' CompensationStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bland v. Gellman

A claimant had two workers' compensation claims, one managed by the Special Fund for Reopened Cases and the other by Travelers Insurance Company, with liability equally apportioned. The claimant's treating physician requested a variance for aquatic therapy, which both carriers denied. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge approved the treatment, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, asserting that the variance request form (MG-2) was not properly served on the Board and that the review request was untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the MG-2 form was timely filed with the Board, referencing both claim numbers, and that the request for review of the denial was also timely. The court concluded that the Board's determination lacked substantial evidence and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Variance RequestAquatic TherapyClaim DenialMG-2 FormTimely FilingAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesTravelers Insurance CompanySubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. ADJ9755370
Regular
Aug 10, 2017

BERNARDINO GARDEA vs. CITY OF PASADENA

This case concerns the City of Pasadena's request for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding the applicant's occupational group number. The WCJ initially recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition as untimely. However, the defendant has now requested leave to file a supplemental petition to address issues raised in the WCJ's report. The WCAB has granted the defendant's request to file this supplemental petition. The defendant is ordered to file the supplemental petition within 20 days, either by mail or via EAMS, to avoid rejection.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental PetitionReconsiderationOccupational Group NumberAdministrative Law JudgePetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10848Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSCity of Pasadena
References
0
Case No. 8074/89
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Palazo

The defendant, charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance, moved to have her attorney present at her presentence interview with the Department of Probation. This request challenged the Department's Executive Policy and Procedure No. 20-2-83, which generally disallows counsel's presence during such interviews. The defendant argued the policy was unconstitutional and that exceptional circumstances, including her low education, non-English speaking status, emotional state, and spousal privilege concerns, warranted an exception. The court, presided over by Judge Norman George, denied the motion, upholding the constitutionality of the policy. The court reasoned that the presentence interview is a non-adversarial information-gathering stage and that New York's statutory scheme adequately ensures fundamental fairness without requiring counsel's presence at the interview itself, further concluding that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated.

Criminal ProcedureRight to CounselPresentence InterviewDepartment of Probation PolicyConstitutional LawSixth AmendmentSentencing StageExceptional CircumstancesSpousal PrivilegeDue Process
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1981

Milburn v. Mcniff

This case concerns an appeal challenging the constitutionality of the New York State Department of Correctional Services' inmate correspondence program. The plaintiff, an inmate named Louis Milburn, contended that his First Amendment rights were violated when his letters to the Poughkeepsie Journal were returned, allegedly due to censorship under Departmental Directive 4422. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, initially issued an order restricting the department from imposing greater restrictions on news media correspondence. However, the appellate court, finding a lack of factual findings and confusion regarding prior remittal instructions, again remitted the matter for a comprehensive factual hearing. This hearing is to determine the reasons for the letters' return, examine the department's directives on mail inspection and censorship, and balance governmental interests against inmates' constitutional rights, with the appeal held in abeyance.

Inmate CorrespondenceCensorshipFirst AmendmentConstitutional RightsCorrectional FacilitiesNews MediaDue ProcessAdministrative DirectivesDeclaratory JudgmentRemittal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jamie EE.

Petitioner appealed the dismissal of an application to adjudicate Jamie EE. and her brothers as abused and neglected children by respondent. The Family Court dismissed the case for lack of corroboration of the child's out-of-court statements and denied the Law Guardian's request for an in camera interview with the child. The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's order, holding that an in camera interview could provide the necessary corroboration for the child's statements and should have been allowed. The matter was remitted to Family Court to conduct the interview and receive additional relevant evidence from the Law Guardian.

Child AbuseChild NeglectCorroboration of Child StatementsHearsay EvidenceIn Camera TestimonyFamily Court ActAppellate ReversalRemandLaw Guardian RoleChild Welfare Proceedings
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Ward

Petitioners, inmates in the New York State Department of Correctional Services, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to compel the release of their medical records to Prisoners' Legal Services of New York, Inc. Initially, the request covered multiple petitioners, but compliance was granted for all except Lawrence Gaines. Gaines had authorized a law student, Barbara Schneider, to obtain his records, but the request was denied on the grounds that only attorneys or certified social workers could receive such records. The respondents argued that law students are not considered "attorneys" under relevant regulations and releasing records to them could pose liability issues. The court acknowledged the need to protect respondents and ruled that requests should be signed or countersigned by a licensed attorney from Prisoners' Legal Services. Consequently, Lawrence Gaines' petition was denied.

inmatesmedical recordscorrectional facilitieslegal assistancelaw studentsattorney representationArticle 78 proceedingaccess to informationlegal ethicsliability
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 3,092 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