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

A. F. v. Spence Chapin Agency

A 16-year-old father, who previously consented to the adoption of his out-of-wedlock infant, sought custody, attempting to revoke his consent. The birth mother had also surrendered the child to Spence Chapin Services for Families and Children, who placed the baby with preadoptive parents. The court examined the validity of the minor father's consent, whether it was statutorily or constitutionally required, and his standing to petition for custody. It found the father's consent invalid due to the agency's insufficient guidance for a minor, but determined his consent was not legally required under Domestic Relations Law § 111 (1) (e) as he did not meet the criteria for demonstrating paternal interest. Applying the 'best interest of the child' standard, the court ultimately denied the father's custody petition, concluding the preadoptive parents were better suited.

Adoption LawChild CustodyMinor Parents' RightsParental ConsentBest Interests of the ChildFamily LawUnmarried FathersRevocation of ConsentAdoption AgenciesLegal Standing
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Paiz v. Coastal Pipeline Products Corp.

Claimant, injured while working as a laborer, sought double workers' compensation benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14-a (1) on the grounds that he was a minor employed in violation of labor law. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied these increased benefits, but the Workers’ Compensation Board later concluded that the claimant was indeed a minor at the time of injury and continued the case for proper compensation. The employer appealed this Board decision. However, the Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Board’s decision was interlocutory and nonappealable because it did not resolve all substantive issues, thus precluding an immediate appeal.

Workers' CompensationMinor EmploymentDouble IndemnityIllegal EmploymentAppellate JurisdictionInterlocutory OrderNon-Appealable DecisionLabor LawBoard RulingJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. ADJ8219210
Regular
Oct 19, 2012

PETE MINOR vs. BP AMERICA, INC., EMPLOYERS SELF-INSURANCE SERVICE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied BP America's petition for reconsideration of a prior award to applicant Pete Minor. The WCAB affirmed the judge's findings of industrial injury to Minor's shoulders and awarded benefits, including temporary disability, attorney fees, and future medical treatment. The Board also upheld the judge's finding of unreasonable delay in payment of benefits, which resulted in a 25% increase under Labor Code section 5814. The defendant's petition was criticized for misrepresenting material evidence and failing to disclose crucial facts regarding the injury AOE/COE.

AOE/COELabor Code section 5814unreasonable delaymedical treatmenttemporary disability indemnityself-procured medical treatmentPetition for ReconsiderationReport and Recommendationsanctionsmisleading petition
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2006

Matter of Zaim R.

Zaim R., a minor, filed a motion in Family Court, Orange County, seeking a finding of eligibility for long-term foster care due to abuse, neglect, and/or abandonment to obtain special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS). Zaim, represented by counsel, entered the U.S. illegally and resides with his great uncle, who was previously appointed his guardian. The court, presided over by Judge Carol S. Klein, declined jurisdiction, finding that it lacked authority to intervene in federal immigration proceedings, especially since removal proceedings commenced before the guardianship was established. The court emphasized its limited jurisdiction, citing similar cases, and dismissed the application, noting that the relief sought was outside its scope and that SIJS findings should be made by the immigration court.

Immigration LawSpecial Immigrant Juvenile StatusFamily Court JurisdictionFederal PreemptionGuardianship ProceedingsChild WelfareUnaccompanied MinorsDeportationLong-term Foster Care EligibilityJudicial Authority
References
7
Case No. 11-CV-3625
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2014

Joseph v. Owens & Minor Distribution, Inc.

Plaintiff Haney Joseph, an African-American man of Haitian descent, sued his employer, Owens & Minor Distribution, Inc., for race and national origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Joseph alleged disparate pay, denial of training, and racially insensitive remarks from a colleague, Mark Davis. His employment was terminated following an incident with a client, Aleksey Manashir, who expressed dissatisfaction with Joseph. Joseph contended his termination was retaliatory for his complaints of racial discrimination. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that Joseph failed to establish a prima facie case for discrimination, and even if he had, the defendant presented a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason (customer dissatisfaction) which Joseph could not prove was a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. The court also dismissed NYCHRL claims.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIINYSHRLNYCHRLSummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationEmployment LawCustomer Relations
References
120
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1978

Hasten v. Morse Electro Products Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that authorized a double indemnity award under section 14-a of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The claimant, who was 17 years old, misrepresented his age as 18 when applying for employment, and the employer did not request his working papers. A compensable injury subsequently occurred, and the Board found the employer in violation of Labor Law sections 132 and 135, which require minors under 18 to present an employment certificate. The court affirmed the decision, ruling that the employer's failure to see the work permit constituted a violation of the Labor Law, thereby justifying the double compensation, despite the employment being otherwise permissible. The court noted the strictness of the law but was bound by precedent.

Workers' CompensationMinor EmploymentDouble IndemnityLabor Law ViolationEmployment CertificateWork PermitAge MisrepresentationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEducation Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jimenez v. Estate of Jimenez

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. Julio Jimenez, while operating a grocery business owned by the estate of his deceased brother Roberto, was murdered. Julio's wife, Amparo Jimenez, filed for workers' compensation benefits for herself and their three minor children. The Board found an employer-employee relationship existed between Julio and Roberto's estate, a decision contested by the Uninsured Employers’ Fund. The court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the estate, by accepting the benefits of Julio's efforts, was estopped from denying an employment relationship.

Employment RelationshipEstate LiabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsHomicideUninsured Employers' FundAppellate ReviewEstoppelDependent BenefitsBusiness OperationVolunteer Services
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Counterman v. Chater

Plaintiff Hertha Counterman, representing her minor daughter Tammy, initiated this action to appeal the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits. The initial application, based on Tammy's asthma, allergies, learning disability, and later post-traumatic stress disorder, was rejected by an Administrative Law Judge and upheld by the Appeals Council. The court, led by Chief Judge Larimer, reviewed the Commissioner's decision for substantial evidence, applying the four-step evaluation process for child disability under the Social Security Act. Ultimately, the court determined that the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence, concluding that Tammy's impairments did not meet the "Listing of Impairments" or constitute a "marked" functional limitation. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.

SSI Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActChild DisabilityAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals Council ReviewSubstantial Evidence ReviewIndividualized Functional AssessmentListing of ImpairmentsAnxiety DisordersPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

PK Ex Rel. PK v. Bedford Cent. School Dist.

Parents P.K. and P.K. filed a lawsuit against Bedford Central School District under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), appealing a State Review Officer's decision. They sought tuition reimbursement for their minor child P.K.'s unilateral placement in private residential schools, arguing the District failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The District had recommended its Keys to Emotional Awareness (KEA) program, believing P.K.'s difficulties stemmed from substance abuse rather than his emotional disturbance. The Court affirmed the administrative decisions, granting summary judgment to the District, holding that the IEPs were appropriate and that the District was not obligated to pay for substance-abuse treatment.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education ProgramTuition ReimbursementPrivate School PlacementResidential PlacementEmotional DisturbanceSubstance AbuseSchool District ResponsibilitySummary Judgment
References
15
Case No. BAK 0144430 ANA 0384706
Regular

JOSE T. BOCANEGRA (DECEASED), VICTORIA VALDEZ IZAZAGA For Herself and as Guardian Ad Litem For JOAQUIN GOMEZ VALDEZ, A Minor, MALAKIAS GOMEZ VALDEZ, A Minor, EMMA GUZMAN For Herself and as Guardian Ad Litem forJASMYNE BOCANEGRA VALLE, A Minor, GABRIELLA BOCANEGRA, A Minor, vs. SUN-GRO COMMODITIES; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND,

This case involves a deceased worker's dependents claiming serious and willful misconduct by the employer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal and deferred the serious and willful misconduct claim despite the employer's objection. The WCAB found that the issue was not properly noticed for trial and bifurcated it to prevent prejudice and ensure due process for all parties involved.

Serious and willful misconductPetition for removalGuardian Ad LitemIndustrial injuryDeath benefitsMandatory settlement conferencePretrial conference statementBifurcationDue processIrreparable harm
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 299 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