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. 07 Civ. 2935
Regular Panel Decision

Mental Hygiene Legal Service v. Cuomo

The case involves a declaratory judgment action by Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS) challenging the constitutionality of several provisions of the New York Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (SOMTA), codified in New York Mental Hygiene Law (MHL) Article 10. MHLS argued that SOMTA's provisions regarding civil management of sex offenders after prison terms violate due process and equal protection. Specifically, MHLS challenged sections related to pre-probable cause detention (§ 10.06(f)), mandatory involuntary civil detention pending trial (§ 10.06(k)), evidentiary standards for incompetent defendants (§ 10.07(d)), retroactive sexual motivation determinations (§ 10.07(c)), and pre-hearing psychiatric examinations without counsel (§ 10.05(e)). The court granted MHLS's motion for summary judgment regarding §§ 10.06(k), 10.07(c), and 10.07(d), finding them facially unconstitutional and permanently enjoining their enforcement. It denied MHLS's motion and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding §§ 10.06(f) and 10.05(e), concluding that these provisions were capable of constitutional application.

Sex Offender Management and Treatment ActSOMTAMHL Article 10Civil CommitmentDue ProcessFacial ChallengeProbable CausePsychiatric ExaminationArticle 730 DefendantsClear and Convincing Evidence
References
65
Case No. 07-CV-3256 (JFB) (AYS)
Regular Panel Decision

Houston v. Cotter

Plaintiff Robert Houston filed this action against Thomas Cotter, John Weiss, and the County of Suffolk, alleging excessive force and Due Process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A jury found Officer Cotter liable for excessive force and the County of Suffolk liable for a Due Process claim, awarding a total of $30,000 in damages to Houston. The court, presided over by District Judge Joseph F. Bianco, then considered Houston's motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Finding the requested hours and costs excessive due to overstaffing, vague billing, and unreasonable expenditures, the court applied significant reductions. Ultimately, the court awarded Houston $346,479.55 in attorneys' fees and $80,091.90 in costs against the liable defendants.

Section 1983Excessive ForceDue ProcessAttorneys' FeesLitigation CostsCivil RightsDamages AwardJury VerdictLodestar MethodBilling Records
References
95
Case No. 07-CV-2634; 07-CV-4841
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2010

Price v. Reilly

Plaintiff Anthony Price, a pro se inmate, alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs at Nassau County Correctional Center, violating his Eighth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Price claimed incorrect medication dosage for renal disease, failure to be tested for a kidney transplant, and inadequate treatment for shoulder pain against Sheriff Edward Reilly, Kim Edwards, Perry Intal, Mary Sullivan, Dr. Benjamin Okonta, and Nassau University Medical Center. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the medication dosage and all claims against Sheriff Reilly. However, the motion was denied concerning the kidney transplant request and shoulder pain claims, as genuine issues of material fact remained. The court also addressed the exhaustion of administrative remedies, finding defendants failed to establish plaintiff's non-exhaustion for the kidney transplant claim.

Eighth AmendmentDeliberate IndifferenceMedical NeedsPrisoner RightsSummary JudgmentKidney DiseaseRenal FailureDialysisShoulder PainInmate Grievance
References
70
Case No. 07-CV-8150 & 07-CV-9488
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2009

DESKOVIC v. City of Peekskill

Plaintiff Jeffrey Deskovic initiated a civil rights action against multiple defendants, including the City of Peekskill, County of Westchester, and corrections officer Alan Tweed. Deskovic's lawsuit stems from his wrongful arrest, conviction, and incarceration for a rape and murder he did not commit, implicating several police officers and officials in fabricating evidence. He also alleged separate claims against Defendant Tweed for inappropriate pat-down searches of a sexual nature during his imprisonment. The court granted Tweed's motion to sever the claims against him, finding a lack of a logical relationship and common questions of fact or law between Tweed's alleged misconduct and that of the other defendants. The severed claims against Tweed were transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, rather than dismissed, to avoid potential statute of limitations issues.

Civil RightsWrongful ConvictionSection 1983Malicious ProsecutionIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPolice MisconductPrison AssaultSexual AssaultSeverance of ClaimsVenue Transfer
References
78
Case No. ADJ2531693 (MON 0284829)
Regular
Feb 22, 2012

VIRGINIA SIEGEL vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES - EXTENSION DEPARTMENT BUSINESS, OCTAGON RISK SERVICES

This case involves the award of additional attorney's fees to applicant's counsel following a successful defense of a Petition for Writ of Review at the appellate level. The Court of Appeal had previously remanded the matter to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) for the purpose of making this supplemental award. Applicant's attorney requested $2,400.00 for six hours of work at $400.00 per hour, plus $179.07 in costs. The WCAB found this amount reasonable given the attorney's extensive experience and the successful outcome. An award of $2,579.07 in appellate attorney's fees and costs was made against the defendant.

Labor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealSupplemental Attorney's FeeAppellate Attorney's FeeRemandWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReasonable Attorney FeesLegal ServicesPetition for Award of Attorney's Fee
References
3
Case No. 00769-07
Regular Panel Decision

In re Vinluan

Ten Filipino nurses, along with their attorney, were indicted in Suffolk County following their collective resignation from a Long Island nursing home. The prosecution charged them with conspiracy and endangering the welfare of children and physically-disabled persons. The petitioners sought a writ of prohibition to halt the prosecution, arguing that it violated the nurses' Thirteenth Amendment rights against involuntary servitude by criminalizing their resignation and the attorney's First Amendment rights for providing legal advice. The court granted the petition, finding that the prosecution impermissibly infringed upon these constitutional rights. It concluded that the state's interest in preventing harm did not justify abridging the right to freely leave employment or punishing an attorney for good faith legal counsel.

Thirteenth AmendmentInvoluntary ServitudeFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechAttorney-Client PrivilegeCriminal ProsecutionWrit of ProhibitionNursesEmployment LawResignation
References
30
Case No. 07-01464
Regular Panel Decision

GII Industries, Inc. v. New York State Department of Transportation (In re GII Industries, Inc.)

Grace Industries, Inc. filed a complaint against the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT) seeking payment for services rendered under a contract to reconstruct the West Side Highway. The core dispute revolved around the appropriate cost methodology for Grace's damage claim and entitlement to prejudgment interest due to pervasive changes (restaging) in the project plan. The court determined that Grace was not contractually obligated to maintain specific MURK records given the parties' pursuit of an Agreed Price Approach and the DOT's waiver of such requirements. Ultimately, the court ruled that Grace should calculate its damages using the total cost method due to the pervasive and interconnected nature of the increased costs caused by the project's restaging, and granted prejudgment interest from May 8, 2003, concluding that the OSC audit was flawed and did not provide reasonable cause to believe payments were not due.

Construction ContractBreach of ContractDamage ClaimTotal Cost MethodPrejudgment InterestProject RestagingDiffering Site ConditionWaiver of Contractual TermsPublic ContractsNew York State Finance Law
References
25
Case No. No. 07 Civ. 10470
Regular Panel Decision

In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether

This case is a consolidated multi-district litigation concerning actual or threatened groundwater contamination caused by defendants' use of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and its breakdown product, tertiary butyl alcohol. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico alleges that the defendants, including Shell Western Supply and Trading Limited and Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, have contaminated or threatened to contaminate groundwater within its jurisdiction. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment, arguing the Commonwealth's claims were time-barred. The court discusses the prospective application of Puerto Rico's statute of limitations tolling rules, specifically the Fraguada decision which overturned the Arroyo rule. The court ultimately denies the defendants' motion, concluding that the Commonwealth's claims are timely, as Fraguada ended the previous indefinite tolling period and restarted a one-year statute of limitations, within which the defendants were added.

MTBE contaminationGroundwater pollutionStatute of limitationsTolling rulesMulti-district litigationSummary judgmentPuerto Rico Civil CodeJoint and several liabilityProspective application of lawEnvironmental litigation
References
33
Case No. 07-CV-6149L
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2010

Johnson v. THE UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER

Plaintiffs Keith Johnson, M.D., and Laura Schmidt, R.N., filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act against the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital. They alleged defendants defrauded the government by submitting false claims for anesthesiology services under Medicare/Medicaid, claiming physician supervision when it was absent. Johnson also alleged retaliatory discharge for reporting violations, and Schmidt claimed retaliation for refusing to alter medical records. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing failure to plead fraud with particularity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Johnson cross-moved to amend the complaint to add claims of libel per se and prima facie tort against Dr. Lustik. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege that any fraudulent bills were actually presented to Medicare/Medicaid. The retaliation claims were also dismissed because the complaints were not made in furtherance of a qui tam action. Johnson's motion to amend was denied as frivolous and in bad faith. Defendants' request for sanctions was denied without prejudice.

False Claims ActQui TamMedicare FraudMedicaid FraudRetaliatory DischargePleading StandardsRule 9(b)Motion to DismissLeave to AmendLibel
References
28
Case No. 07-cv-11291
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2014

Kwasnik v. 160 Water Street, Inc.

This case concerns Wladyslaw Kwasnik's claims for common law negligence and New York Labor Law violations, alleging injuries from post-9/11 clean-up work near the World Trade Center site. Kwasnik claims exposure to toxic dust due to inadequate safety protocols and equipment provided by various owners, managers, environmental consultants, and contractors. The court, presided by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, ruled on defendants' motions for summary judgment. The decision partially granted and partially denied the motions, dismissing claims against General Reinsurance Corp., National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., and Blackmon-Mooring Steamatic Catastrophe, Inc., while finding triable issues of fact for other defendants under Labor Law sections 200 and 241(6).

Workers' CompensationSummary Judgment MotionNew York Labor LawWorld Trade Center DisasterAsbestos AbatementToxic Dust ExposurePersonal Protective EquipmentSite RemediationEnvironmental ConsultantsGeneral Contractors
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 37 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