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 Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of I-Conscious R. (George S.)

This case involves an appeal concerning a Family Court order that determined a respondent father abused and neglected his daughter and derivatively abused and neglected his son. The appellate court affirmed the fact-finding order, concluding that the petitioner presented a preponderance of evidence, including medical findings of genital herpes in the child, indicative of sexual abuse. The court upheld the neglect finding due to the father's failure to secure timely medical care for his daughter's severe symptoms. Additionally, the respondent's arguments regarding the suggestiveness of interviews, the testimony of his expert witness, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were all rejected by the court. An appeal against a separate order of protection was dismissed due to abandonment.

Child AbuseChild NeglectSexual AbuseGenital HerpesMedical EvidenceFamily Court ProceedingsSufficiency of EvidenceCredibility AssessmentIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. SAC 0343316
Regular
Aug 14, 2007

MELODY BRIDGES vs. SCHURMAN FINE PAPERS, CRUM & FORSTER

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of its prior order dismissing the applicant's petition, finding it was timely filed. Despite the applicant's petition being deemed timely, the Board, adopting the Judge's report, ultimately denied reconsideration of the original April 4, 2007 findings. This rescinds the dismissal order but affirms the denial of the initial request for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition to VacateOpinion and Order Dismissing ReconsiderationTimeliness of FilingPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ Findings and OrdersTemporary DisabilitySalary During DisabilityProof of ServiceElectronic Case History Log
References
0
Case No. ADJ10805554
Regular
Sep 12, 2025

CARMEN FRANKLIN vs. LAW OFFICE OF LINDA FULLERTON, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY

Defendant sought reconsideration of a Findings, Award, and Order (F,A&O) issued by a WCJ on June 26, 2025, which set aside an earlier August 16, 2024 Award approving stipulations and found applicant owed permanent disability benefits. Defendant contended the stipulations were not based on mutual mistake and challenged a Notice of Intent (NIT) to issue sanctions. The Appeals Board, having timely acted on the petition, determined that the F,A&O was a final order subject to reconsideration but applied the removal standard because defendant was challenging only an interlocutory finding. Finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, the Appeals Board denied the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderStipulationsMutual Mistake of FactPermanent Disability BenefitsNotice of IntentSanctionsLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management System
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kowalski v. Fisher 40th & 3rd Co.

The case involves an appeal by UNESCO, Inc., a third-party defendant, against an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The lower court granted the plaintiff's motion to estop UNESCO from denying a stipulation to add its Workers' Compensation Law lien to a jury's damage award, and entered judgment against UNESCO. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order but reversed the judgment, vacated the order, and denied the plaintiff's motion. The appellate court found no evidence of a written or open-court stipulation and no reliance by the plaintiff on the alleged stipulation, thus concluding that the Supreme Court erred in applying estoppel. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationStipulationEstoppelAppealJudgment ReversalCPLRAppellate ProcedureThird-Party ActionLien
References
6
Case No. ADJ3855987 (OAK 0344425)
Regular
Aug 22, 2012

FRANCIS CRUZ vs. UNIVERSITY ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order allowing an Employment Development Department lien claim. The Board rescinded the original order, finding that the parties had reached a new stipulation based on a mutual mistake regarding the application of a time-off-work cap to the lien. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to approve the replacement stipulation or for the judge to re-issue the original order if the new stipulation is not approved. The Petition for Removal was dismissed as reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Allowing Lien ClaimEmployment Development DepartmentMutual Mistake of FactTTD CapCompromise and ReleaseStipulationWCJ
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Justin J.

Petitioner initiated neglect proceedings under Family Ct Act article 10 against respondent Arnold J. and his wife, alleging inadequate supervision, failure to administer prescribed medication, excessive corporal punishment, and drug abuse in the presence of their six children. The children were subsequently removed from the home. The Family Court of Clinton County found respondent and his wife committed acts constituting neglect and violated preliminary orders. Respondent appealed both findings. The appellate court noted that the appeal concerning the violation of preliminary orders had been previously resolved. Focusing on the neglect finding, the court found ample evidence to support the Family Court's determination, including respondent's admissions to inadequate supervision, using excessive corporal punishment, and smoking marihuana while caring for the children. Further testimony from a friend, a physician, and a caseworker corroborated the neglect allegations, detailing drug use, suspected medication sales, and respondent's erratic behavior endangering the children. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the order finding neglect and dismissed the appeal from the order finding respondent in violation of prior orders.

Child NeglectFamily CourtParental RightsSubstance AbuseCorporal PunishmentInadequate SupervisionAppellate ReviewEvidenceCredibilityDomestic Violence
References
7
Case No. ADJ7358750
Regular
Jul 24, 2017

ANDRES GUZMAN vs. AEROSPACE SERVICE CONTROLS, TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to correct a clerical error in the original findings. The Board affirmed the prior finding that the applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his head, traumatic brain injury, and psyche, as stipulated by the parties. The Board denied the defendant's request to withdraw the stipulation regarding the psyche injury, finding no good cause to relieve them from the agreement made during a lengthy hearing. The Board amended the findings to reflect injury to the neck, correcting a factual error where the original order stated injury to the back.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeStipulationsAffirmative DefenseClerical ErrorUnilateral Mistake of FactGood CauseLabor Code Section 3208.3(d)
References
10
Case No. ADJ2414146 (ANA 0407600)
Regular
Oct 20, 2008

JOSEPH MORENO vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/PUBLIC SAFETY

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the Defendant, County of Los Angeles/Public Safety, regarding an order for temporary disability benefits. The Board dismissed the petition, finding no order was issued under the case number cited by the Defendant, and also noting the underlying order merely approved a stipulation voluntarily entered into by the Defendant. Even if the petition had been properly filed, reconsideration would have been denied as there was no basis to set aside the Defendant's stipulation.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationStipulationTemporary DisabilityDate of InjuryJurisdictionExpedited Hearing OrderSelf-InsuredWorkers' Compensation JudgeCase Number
References
0
Case No. ADJ2539014 (OXN 0136416) ADJ3424059 (OXN 0144174)
Regular
Jul 26, 2013

JUAN RAMIREZ vs. BROKAW NURSERY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the insurer's petition for reconsideration of a prior order. The prior order found lien claimant Pharma Finance's medical treatment reasonable and necessary, deemed a specific regulation inapplicable, and directed further development of the record regarding the value of the services. The Board found the petition skeletal and also noted the insurer agreed with the finding on the regulation's inapplicability. Furthermore, the insurer had stipulated to the primary treating physician and did not raise the Medical Provider Network issue at trial, and while Labor Code section 4903.8 was implicitly raised, no specific findings were made on its application, nor was a final order on the lien amount issued.

WCABBrokaw NurseryState Compensation Insurance FundPharma FinanceJoint Findings and OrdersOrder Vacating Submissionmedical treatment serviceslien claimantreasonable and necessaryCalifornia Code of Regulations title 8 section 9785.5
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 30,429 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