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
Nov 18, 1991

In re Lenny McN.

The Family Court in Bronx County issued an order on November 18, 1991, directing the disclosure of a social worker's entire casework file to an intervenor-respondent. This social worker was called as a witness by the law guardian for the infants. The appellate court unanimously reversed this order, finding the social worker's testimony regarding prior file use too equivocal to support a wholesale waiver of confidentiality and work product privileges. The court emphasized the protection against disclosure of mental impressions of a party's representative, classifying a social worker employed by a law guardian as such a representative. The case was remanded for a continuation of the dispositional hearing, with further discovery limited unless the law guardian seeks to elicit an adverse expert opinion from the social worker.

Family LawDisclosureConfidentiality PrivilegeWork Product ImmunitySocial Worker TestimonyChild CustodyFamily Court ProceedingDiscovery LimitationsAppellate ReviewWaiver of Privilege
References
2
Case No. 10-99-028-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2000

Tommy Jenkins v. Guardian Industries, Corp. and Charles Hicks

Tommy Jenkins, an employee of Guardian Industries, Corp., sustained a workplace injury and was subsequently terminated after failing a return-to-work physical. He filed a lawsuit against Guardian and Charles Hicks, alleging disability discrimination and retaliatory termination related to his workers' compensation claim. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. In this concurring and dissenting opinion, Justice Tom Gray agrees with the majority's decision to affirm summary judgment for Charles Hicks. However, he dissents from the majority's implied reversal of summary judgment for Guardian, contending that Jenkins's proposed accommodations were unreasonable as a matter of law and that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding Guardian's stated reason for termination. Justice Gray concludes that the trial court's summary judgment for Guardian should have been affirmed.

Disability discriminationRetaliatory terminationWorkers' compensation claimSummary judgmentReasonable accommodationLight duty workEmployment lawCausal connectionAbsentee policyAppellate review
References
9
Case No. 05-17-00423-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2018

Linda Dickens and Dickens Law, LLC v. Jason C. Webster, P.C. D/B/A the Webster Law Firm and Jason Webster

This case concerns a dispute between two lawyers, Linda Dickens and Jason C. Webster, over an alleged contingency fee sharing agreement in a wrongful death case. Webster sought a declaration that the agreement was unenforceable under Texas law, while Dickens counterclaimed for tortious interference and breach of contract, arguing Kansas law should apply. The trial court dismissed Dickens’s tortious interference claim under the TCPA and granted summary judgment to Webster. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of Dickens's tortious interference claim, finding sufficient evidence, but affirmed that Texas law applies and the fee sharing agreement is unenforceable due to a lack of written client consent as required by Texas Disciplinary Rules. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the tortious interference claim.

Fee Sharing AgreementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens Participation ActCommercial Speech ExemptionChoice of LawProfessional Conduct RulesContingency FeesLegal EthicsSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Eggleston

This case involves an appeal from an order entered May 29, 2002, which summarily dismissed a petition for the appointment of a guardian under Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law. The petitioner, Commissioner of Social Services, sought a guardian for a 69-year-old respondent facing eviction and exhibiting inability to manage personal needs and property due to profound depression. The lower court dismissed the petition without a hearing and declined to appoint counsel for the respondent, despite recommendations from a court evaluator and the respondent's requests. The appellate court unanimously reversed the dismissal, reinstated the petition, and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of a hearing and the appointment of counsel to ensure due process and proper adjudication under Article 81. The court highlighted that Article 81 mandates evaluating specific incapacities to tailor guardianship powers and that a hearing is crucial for presenting evidence and ensuring fairness.

GuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81IncapacityDue ProcessRight to CounselEvictionDepressionAppellate ReviewRemandPsychiatric Evaluation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gambella v. Guardian Investor Services Corp.

Plaintiff George Gambella alleged that defendants Guardian Investors Services Corporation and John McQueen violated federal securities law (Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5) and various state laws. Gambella claimed McQueen, a sales representative for Guardian, fraudulently failed to execute sell orders for his 25,000 shares of United Entertainment Corporation (UENT) stock in January 1997, falsely stating the shares were illiquid. Gambella suffered over $100,000 in losses when the UENT stock became valueless due to alleged price manipulation by McQueen's former employer and others. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Gambella lacked standing under Rule 10b-5 as he was fraudulently induced to retain securities, not purchase or sell them. The Court granted the motion, agreeing that the 'aborted purchaser-seller exception' was not applicable post-Blue Chip Stamps, thus dismissing the federal claim and the remaining state law claims for lack of diversity jurisdiction.

Securities FraudRule 10b-5Section 10(b)Motion to DismissStandingAborted Purchaser-Seller ExceptionBlue Chip Stamps RuleBirnbaum RuleFraudulent InducementRetention of Securities
References
18
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06139 [243 AD3d 417]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2025

Pacheco v. Catholic Guardian Servs.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's cause of action alleging nonpayment of wages under Labor Law § 191. The plaintiff, Ingrid Pacheco, failed to state a valid claim under Labor Law § 191 as it pertains to frequency of pay, not unpaid wages, and she did not make any allegations regarding the frequency of pay. Furthermore, Pacheco did not sufficiently allege that she is a clerical worker entitled to § 191 protections, rather than a professional worker excluded from them. Consequently, her related claim under Labor Law § 198, which provides remedies for substantive violations of Labor Law article 6, was also dismissed.

Nonpayment of WagesLabor Law § 191 ClaimFrequency of PayClerical Worker StatusProfessional Worker ExemptionLabor Law § 198 RemediesAmended Complaint DismissalAppellate Division First DepartmentSufficiency of PleadingWage and Hour Disputes
References
7
Case No. 01 Civ. 6600(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Internet Law Library, Inc. v. Southridge Capital Management, LLC

Internet Law Library, Inc. and Hunter M.A. Carr (Internet Law) moved to consolidate two separate legal actions and sought designation as the plaintiff in the combined litigation. Cootes Drive LLC and other entities (Cootes Drive) opposed Internet Law's plaintiff designation but did not object to consolidation itself. The first action, initiated by Internet Law in Texas, alleged securities law violations and fraud by Cootes Drive regarding a Stock Purchase Agreement. The second action, filed by Cootes Drive in New York, accused Internet Law of breaching the same agreement and committing fraud. The Texas court subsequently transferred Internet Law's action to New York for potential consolidation. The court, finding common legal and factual questions and minimal risks of confusion or prejudice, granted the consolidation. Additionally, the court designated Internet Law as the plaintiff and *sua sponte* consolidated a third related case, *Brewer, et al. v. Southridge Capital Management LLC, et al.*

Consolidation of actionsRule 42(a) F.R. Civ. P.Realignment of partiesCompulsory counterclaimForum shoppingFirst-to-file ruleStock Purchase AgreementSecurities fraudBreach of contractJudicial economy
References
27
Case No. 13-01-00119-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

McAllen Police Officer's Union and the City of McAllen, Texas v. Ricardo Tamez, Individually and as President of the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, and McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association

The City of McAllen and the McAllen Police Officers Union (appellants) appealed a district court order compelling an election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent for the city's police officers. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals in Texas reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that selection by petition is a proper method for designating a bargaining agent and found no evidence of coercion in the petition's circulation. It further concluded that the appellees, Ricardo Tamez and the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, failed to provide 'substantial support' to warrant an election, thus denying their requests for a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus.

Collective BargainingPolice UnionLabor LawElectionPetitionSupervisor InfluenceMajority RepresentationTexas Local Government CodeNational Labor Relations ActAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williamson v. 16 West 57th Street Co.

Bernard Williamson, a window cleaner employed by Audobon Window Cleaning, Inc., sustained grave injuries after falling from a ledge while cleaning windows at premises owned by 16 West 57th Street Co. and leased by Mother Works, Inc. Williamson, through his guardian, sued the owner and lessee alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 202, and 240. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240 liability. The defendants appealed, contending Labor Law § 240 was inapplicable to window cleaners and preempted by Labor Law § 202. The appellate court affirmed that Labor Law § 240 applies to professional window cleaners and is not preempted by Labor Law § 202, but granted summary judgment to the appellants dismissing the Labor Law § 202 cause of action due to a lack of demonstrated violation.

Window Cleaner InjuryFall AccidentLabor Law ApplicationStatutory PreemptionBuilding Owner LiabilityLessee LiabilitySummary Judgment RulingWorkplace SafetyElevation-Related RiskNew York Appellate Court
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 17,063 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