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
Jan 23, 2015

Matter of Ruth Joanna O.O. (Melissa O.)

Justice Gesmer dissents from the affirmation of a Family Court order finding Melissa O. neglected her child. The dissent argues that the Family Court lacked a basis for its neglect finding, as there was no evidence that the mother's conduct impaired or threatened her child's condition. Furthermore, it asserts that the findings regarding the mother's failure to take medication or engage in mental health services were unsupported by admissible evidence. Gesmer, J. emphasizes that proof of mental illness alone is insufficient for a neglect finding without a causal link to actual or potential harm to the child. The dissent concludes that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the mother's mental illness resulted in a failure to provide a minimum degree of care or that the child was harmed or at imminent risk of harm.

Child Protective ProceedingNeglect FindingParental Mental IllnessSufficiency of EvidenceImminent Risk of HarmMinimum Degree of CareFamily Court ActDissenting OpinionAdmissibility of EvidenceCausal Connection
References
15
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2009

In re Jessica L.

This case concerns an appeal by a father against a finding of neglect regarding his two children. The children resided with their mother, who had a history of drug use. The father, suspecting the mother was currently using drugs, anonymously contacted the Administration for Children's Services (ACS). Although the mother subsequently tested positive for cocaine, the appellate court reversed the Family Court's neglect finding against the father. The court determined that the father's actions, including his proactive call to ACS, met the minimum degree of care required and did not constitute neglect, thereby vacating the finding and dismissing the petition against him.

Family LawChild NeglectParental RightsAppellate ReviewFamily CourtSubstance AbuseDrug TestingACS InterventionMinimum Degree of CareReversal of Finding
References
3
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. ADJ10798774 (Master File); ADJ10798775
Regular
Jul 21, 2025

WILLK MARILAO vs. CITY OF SHAFTER

Applicant Willk Marilao sought reconsideration of a Joint Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) concerning industrial injuries to his upper and lower extremities. The F&A found 64% permanent partial disability for upper extremities and 23% for lower extremities. Applicant contended that he was 100% permanently and totally disabled and that apportionment was improper. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the F&A, and returned the matter for further proceedings, finding the original findings of specific injuries unsupported by substantial medical evidence, and medical opinions on apportionment to be speculative.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of Fact and AwardIndustrial InjuryBilateral Upper ExtremitiesCarpal Tunnel SyndromePermanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentVocational ExpertPermanently and Totally Disabled
References
27
Case No. ADJ13119319
Regular
Jul 07, 2025

LUIS CALDERA vs. PORTUGUESE FRATERNAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA/SES HALL, OAK RIVER INSURANCE

The defendant sought reconsideration of a finding that the applicant was an employee when he sustained a left wrist injury. The defendant contended the employment finding was contrary to law, unsupported by evidence, and that the WCJ misapplied Labor Code section 2750.5 and failed to consider Borello factors. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report. The report affirmed the WCJ's findings, noting the applicant's credibility and the defendant's failure to rebut the employment presumption, particularly regarding the applicant's lack of a contractor's license as required by Labor Code section 2750.5.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationEmployment StatusIndependent ContractorLabor Code Section 2750.5Borello FactorsSubstantial EvidencePresumption of EmploymentControl and SupervisionBusiness License
References
13
Case No. ADJ9511618, ADJ10100794
Regular
Oct 22, 2018

TEODULFA LUIS vs. LABOR FINDERS INTERNATIONAL, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

This case involves a worker's compensation applicant who sought reconsideration of an administrative law judge's (WCJ) findings. The WCJ had determined the applicant sustained injury to specific body parts but found no permanent disability or need for further medical treatment, and also denied a separate injury claim. The applicant argued that the agreed medical examiner's (AME) reports lacked substantial evidence, that the findings on impairment and treatment were unsupported, and that certain exhibits were improperly excluded. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's reliance on the AME's opinions as substantial evidence and finding no error in excluding the late-submitted exhibits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of Fact and OrderAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Substantial EvidenceWhole Person Impairment (WPI)Injury Arising Out of and Occurring in the Course of Employment (AOE/COE)Permanent and Stationary StatusFurther Medical TreatmentMandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers' International Union of America

This case involves a review of a determination finding discrimination. The court affirmed the discrimination finding, stating it was based on substantial evidence. However, the Commissioner's calculation of damages was found to be erroneous. The original damage award for eight complainants was based on an hourly wage rate applicable to only one. The court modified the awards for complainants whose actual wages were less than the hourly wage rate used by the Commissioner, accepting their actual hourly wage rate and hours lost. Awards where actual wages exceeded the determined rate were not disturbed due to the absence of a cross-appeal.

DiscriminationDamagesWage RateErroneous ComputationJudicial ReviewModificationComplainantsHourly WageSubstantial EvidencePanel Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Joshua J.

The father appealed a Family Court order that found he neglected his child, Joshua. The neglect finding was based on the father's refusal to allow DSS workers and police into his home for an unannounced visit, despite a prior agreement to cooperate with DSS supervision. The father argued he refused entry for safety reasons, citing a past robbery and concerns about impersonators, and that Joshua was found clean, healthy, and safe. The appellate court reversed the Family Court's order, finding that DSS failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Joshua's condition was impaired or in imminent danger due to the father's actions. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding was dismissed.

Child NeglectChild Protective ServicesFamily Court ActParental RightsAppellate ReviewPreponderance of EvidenceDSS SupervisionUnannounced VisitsHome Entry RefusalChild Safety
References
7
Case No. ADJ9084481
Regular
Dec 06, 2017

AMAURY TELEMACO vs. PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS, VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's finding of no subject matter jurisdiction, acknowledging that the applicant played 19 games in California during his baseball career. However, the Board intends to find that this minimal connection, absent a hiring in California, does not create a substantial and legitimate interest for California to adjudicate the claim under the *Johnson* due process standard. The Board will allow further briefing on the application of *Johnson* and the relevant statutory amendment regarding professional athletes.

Subject Matter JurisdictionLabor Code section 3600.5(a)Labor Code section 5305Hiring in CaliforniaCumulative InjuryConstitutional Due ProcessFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)Substantial and Legitimate ConnectionProfessional Baseball PlayerInjurious Exposure
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 15,667 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