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. 2014-1942 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2017

AL Acupuncture, P.C. v. Geico Ins. Co.

This case, AL Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., concerns an appeal from a Civil Court order regarding assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, AL Acupuncture, P.C., sought summary judgment for services rendered, while defendant Geico Insurance Company cross-moved for dismissal. The Appellate Term modified the lower court's order. It denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on claims from September 8 to September 25, 2008, citing the plaintiff's failure to prove the claim was not timely denied and issues with IME scheduling evidence. Conversely, the court granted the defendant's cross-motion, dismissing claims for services from July 8 to September 5, 2008, as Geico demonstrated timely denial and payment under the workers' compensation fee schedule. The order was affirmed as modified.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentIndependent medical examinationsTimely denialWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAcupuncture servicesAppellate TermProvider actionAssigned claimsCivil Court order
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2013

Christopher C. v. Bonnie C.

This divorce action between Christopher C. and Bonnie C. addresses equitable distribution, spousal maintenance, and counsel fees. The defendant, Bonnie C., who has a court-appointed guardian due to mental and emotional difficulties, had separated from the plaintiff in 2003 and informally divided marital assets. The court ratified this prior asset division, noting the defendant had dissipated her share. Finding the defendant unable to work and self-support, and the plaintiff capable of employment despite his claims of disability, the court awarded the defendant non-durational permanent maintenance of $2,500 per month and substantial attorney's fees. The plaintiff's motion to suspend or refund temporary maintenance was denied.

DivorceSpousal MaintenanceEquitable DistributionGuardianshipMental Health IssuesAsset DissipationAttorney's FeesFinancial CapacityPermanent MaintenanceMarital Property
References
12
Case No. 2015-1078 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2017

Bronx Acupuncture Therapy, P.C. v. Hereford Ins. Co.

This case involves Bronx Acupuncture Therapy, P.C., as assignee of Niurka Mejia, appealing an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County. The defendant, Hereford Ins. Co., had moved for summary judgment, arguing full payment according to workers' compensation fee schedules. The Civil Court granted the motion, dismissing claims for services billed under codes 97039 (unlisted modality) and 99199 (unlisted special service). The Appellate Term reversed this decision, finding that the defendant failed to request additional verification within 15 business days for these "By Report" designated codes, as required by 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (b). Therefore, the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentAppellate TermWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleUnlisted Medical CodesVerification of ClaimsMoxibustionAcupressureInsurance DisputeHealthcare Provider Reimbursement
References
2
Case No. 2013-2706 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2016

NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

This case, NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., concerned an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County. The plaintiff, NYS Acupuncture, P.C., sought assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm, which had moved for summary judgment arguing full payment according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Civil Court initially granted State Farm's motion. On appeal, NYS Acupuncture, P.C. contended that the fee schedule reductions were improper. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the prior ruling, finding that State Farm adequately demonstrated it had fully compensated the plaintiff for acupuncture services based on the applicable workers' compensation fee schedule for services performed by chiropractors, referencing Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co.

Workers' Compensation Fee ScheduleNo-Fault BenefitsAcupuncture ServicesChiropractorsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeFee Schedule ReductionAssigned BenefitsMedical Billing
References
1
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00798 [224 AD3d 495]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Camrem C. (Lydia C.)

Lydia C. appealed a Family Court order that found she neglected her child, Camrem C., by inflicting or allowing physical harm. The Family Court's finding was based on extensive medical evidence showing the child had multiple welts, lacerations, and bruises in various stages of healing, indicating a pattern of corporal punishment. This medical evidence corroborated out-of-court statements made by the child to a paraprofessional, the Child Advocacy Center, and an ACS caseworker. The appellant's testimony, which attributed the injuries to a single incident, was deemed insufficient to account for the variety of injuries observed. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the neglect finding, concluding that the record supported the Family Court's decision and that the appellant, at a minimum, should have been aware of the injuries and acted to protect the child.

Child NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewPhysical HarmCorporal PunishmentMedical EvidenceOut-of-court StatementsCredibility FindingsParental ResponsibilityChild Protection
References
4
Case No. 26 NY3d 107 (2016)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2016

S.B. v. A.C.C.

This case addresses the definition of "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) for purposes of custody and visitation for unmarried couples. The New York Court of Appeals overrules its 1991 decision in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., which had limited parental standing to biological or adoptive parents. The Court now holds that a non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing if they can show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive and raise a child together. In Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., the Appellate Division's order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings under this new standard. In Matter of Estrellita A. v Jennifer L.D., the Appellate Division's order is affirmed, upholding standing based on judicial estoppel. This decision aims to address the unworkability of the Alison D. rule in light of evolving familial relationships, particularly for same-sex couples, and to protect the best interests of children.

Parental RightsCustodyVisitationSame-Sex CouplesNontraditional FamiliesEquitable EstoppelJudicial EstoppelPre-Conception AgreementDomestic Relations LawOverruling Precedent
References
28
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05500 [242 AD3d 829]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2025

DeMarco v. C.A.C. Indus., Inc.

The plaintiff, Peter DeMarco, suffered personal injuries when excavation walls collapsed at a Queens work site. He sued C.A.C. Industries, Inc., a contractor that provided a backhoe and operating engineer to his employer, the City of New York Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The Supreme Court, Queens County, partially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing claims under Labor Law § 200 and certain Labor Law § 241 (6) violations, while denying dismissal of the common-law negligence claim. The plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendant lacked authority to supervise for the Labor Law claims but failed to demonstrate a special employment relationship, leaving triable issues of fact regarding the common-law negligence claim and whether the defendant's excavation created or exacerbated the dangerous condition.

Excavation CollapseTrench SafetyLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSpecial EmploymentContractor NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary Judgment AppealDuty of Care
References
21
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01291 [169 AD3d 1240]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Matter of Logan C. (John C.)

This case involves an appeal by John C. from orders of the Family Court of Schuyler County, which adjudicated his children, Logan C. and another, to be permanently neglected and terminated his parental rights. The children were initially removed from respondent's custody after the daughter sustained severe injuries, leading to findings of abuse and neglect. Despite petitioner Schuyler County Department of Social Services' diligent efforts to provide services like mental health counseling and parent education, respondent failed to adequately plan for the children's future or address the underlying issues, including failing to engage in consistent mental health treatment and parent education, and maintaining contact with the caretaker responsible for the daughter's injuries. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found ample support for the Family Court's determination of permanent neglect and affirmed the termination of respondent's parental rights, concluding it was in the children's best interests given their progress in foster care and respondent's lack of substantial improvement. The court dismissed the appeal from the fact-finding order as non-dispositional, but reviewed the issues in conjunction with the appeals from the dispositional orders.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectChild AbuseAppellate ReviewFamily LawSocial Services LawDiligent EffortsReunification PlanBest Interests of ChildrenPsychological Evaluation
References
23
Case No. 2013-1350 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2016

AL Acupuncture, P.C. v. Praetorian Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York regarding first-party no-fault benefits. Plaintiffs, AL Acupuncture, P.C. and NY OSTEOPATHIC, P.C., as assignees, sought to recover benefits from Praetorian Insurance Company. The Civil Court denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Term reversed the lower court's decision, granting the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that one claim had been fully paid, rendering the medical necessity issue moot, and for other claims, the defendant's independent medical examination report demonstrating lack of medical necessity was unrebutted by the plaintiffs.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentMedical NecessityAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeAcupuncture ServicesWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleIndependent Medical ExaminationDenial of ClaimCivil Court Appeal
References
6
Case No. 2015-2609 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2018

Gl Acupuncture, P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by GL Acupuncture, P.C., as assignee of Dwayne O. Ferguson, against Allstate Insurance Company regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, had initially denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint due to alleged excessive charges. On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, found that Allstate Insurance Company failed to demonstrate timely mailing of denial of claim forms, thus precluding their defense. However, GL Acupuncture, P.C. also failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment. Therefore, the Appellate Term modified the order by denying the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, while affirming the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentDenial of claimTimely mailingStandard office practiceInsurance defenseAppellate reviewPrima facie caseExcess workers' compensation fee scheduleAssignee claims
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 4,043 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