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. ADJ3699477 (OAK 0345390)
Regular
Jul 05, 2011

GARY TOMEI vs. BAY ALARM COMPANY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant seeking authorization for cervical surgery, which was denied based on the treating physician's request not being properly formatted per AD Rule 9792.6(o). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the initial denial was due to the applicant's attorney adding a notation to the physician's report instead of the physician clearly marking it as a spinal surgery authorization request. The Board rescinded the original award, deferring the cervical surgery issue and ordering an expedited second opinion from a designated orthopedic surgeon or neurosurgeon.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGary TomeiBay Alarm CompanyTravelers Property and Casualty Insurance CompanyADJ3699477Opinion and Order Granting Reconsiderationcervical surgerylumbar spineAdministrative Director Rule 9792.6(o)treating physician
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 1946

In re the Arbitration between Transport Workers Union of America, C.I.O., & Fifth Avenue Coach Co.

The Transport Workers Union of America, O.I.O., applied to vacate an arbitration award made in a dispute with the Fifth Avenue Coach Company. The core of the dispute revolved around the implementation of one-man operation of double-deck buses and related employment terms. The Union contended that the arbitrator failed to render a decision on the primary question regarding the implementation of one-man operation, despite it being a key item in the submission agreement. The court found that the arbitrator explicitly avoided deciding this issue, thus failing to fulfill the terms of the submission. Consequently, the court ruled that the award was not mutual, final, and definite on all matters submitted for arbitration, rendering it invalid. The application to vacate the award was therefore granted, with an order for resubmission.

ArbitrationAward VacatedLabor DisputeCollective BargainingOne-Man OperationDouble-Deck BusesArbitrator AuthorityScope of SubmissionUnionPublic Transport
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

F.O. ex rel. O. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiffs F.O. and E.O., on behalf of their minor child Brendan O., sued the New York City Department of Education under the IDEA and New York State Education Law. They sought to reverse a State Review Officer (SRO) decision that had overturned an Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) decision, which ordered the DOE to reimburse tuition for Brendan's private school placement at the Rebecca School for the 2010-2011 school year. Brendan, diagnosed with Myasthenia Gravis and Autism, required special education services, and the dispute centered on the adequacy of the DOE's proposed IEP (a 12:1:4 classroom) versus the Rebecca School's program. The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment regarding tuition reimbursement, finding the SRO's decision inadequately reasoned and deferring to the IHO's conclusion that the DOE's IEP was inappropriate and the Rebecca School was an appropriate unilateral placement. The court ordered the DOE to reimburse $92,100 for Brendan's tuition but denied the plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief concerning a 1:1 health paraprofessional on procedural grounds.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActSpecial EducationFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Educational ProgramTuition ReimbursementAutism Spectrum DisorderMyasthenia GravisImpartial Hearing OfficerState Review OfficerUnilateral Private Placement
References
41
Case No. ADJ3308341
Regular
Jan 27, 2009

MICHAEL COLEMAN vs. RAITO, INC., TIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT, LTD.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reconsidered a decision regarding Michael Coleman's entitlement to spinal surgery. The Board found that the defendant, TIG Specialty Insurance, failed to meet the strict procedural timelines required for objecting to a treating physician's surgical recommendation, specifically citing AD Rule 9792.6(o) and Labor Code section 4610(g)(1). Consequently, the Board rescinded the prior award and remanded the case, giving the defendant ten days to properly initiate the objection process for the spinal surgery. The Board also clarified that the Agreed Medical Evaluator was not qualified to perform the required second opinion surgery evaluation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationAdjusting AgentUtilization ReviewSpinal SurgeryTreating PhysicianAdministrative Director RuleLabor Code Section
References
1
Case No. ADJ10348591 ADJ10349019
Regular
Jan 07, 2019

MIGUEL VELAZQUEZ, SERVANDO VELAZQUEZ vs. ARTEMIO ARCE, SOLOMON MARTINEZ

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding a prior finding that liens for interpreting services were not barred by AD rule 9792.5.5. This rule, requiring a second review request for fee schedule disputes, did not apply because the interpreter services were not subject to an applicable fee schedule at the time of service. Therefore, the lien claimant's failure to request a second review did not preclude the WCAB from adjudicating the lien dispute. The Board reasoned that AD rule 9792.5.5 and associated statutes only mandate the second review process for disputes concerning amounts under an "applicable fee schedule."

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAD Rule 9792.5.5Official Medical Fee ScheduleIndependent Bill ReviewExplanation of ReviewLabor Code section 4603.2Senate Bill 863Threshold IssueFee Schedule DisputeInterpreter Services
References
0
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06370 [222 AD3d 756]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2023

Matter of William O. (Duff)

August O., Jr., as guardian of William O. and administrator of his estate, moved to settle his final account, which included confirming a referee's report. The report concerned claims against and by Claudette Duff, William O.'s geriatric care manager. The Supreme Court, Richmond County, confirmed the referee's findings that Duff improperly collected $9,750 in rent and denied her claim for alleged unpaid expenses. Duff appealed this order. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the court providently exercised its discretion in directing Duff to reimburse the estate and denying her claim.

GuardianshipMental Hygiene LawFiduciary DutyRent CollectionEstate AdministrationAppellate ReviewFinal AccountReferee's ReportUnpaid ExpensesGeriatric Care Manager
References
2
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00603 [135 AD3d 660]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2016

Matter of Nataysha O. (Manuel O.)

The Family Court, Bronx County, initially dismissed petitions alleging neglect against respondent Manuel O. for inflicting excessive corporal punishment on one child and derivatively neglecting two others. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed this decision. The court found, based on a preponderance of evidence including the child's statements and a photograph, that respondent intentionally burned his nearly four-year-old daughter with a cigarette. The respondent's testimony of an accidental injury was rejected as improbable. Consequently, the Appellate Division entered findings of neglect and derivative neglect against the respondent and remanded the case to the Family Court for a dispositional hearing.

NeglectCorporal PunishmentChild AbuseFamily LawAppellate ProcedureEvidenceCredibilityDerivative NeglectIntentional InjuryCigarette Burn
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 1994

Wilbur O. v. Christina P.

This case involves appeals from Family Court orders granting Wilbur O. sole legal custody of his children, William and Jessica O., and adjudicating them as neglected by their mother, Christina P., and stepfather, Allan P. Following their divorce, Christina P. and Allan P., active Jehovah\'s Witnesses, raised the children and began discarding items from Wilbur\'s visits, believing them to be demon-possessed. Christina P. was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder and experienced flashbacks of alleged satanic ritualistic abuse, eventually implicating Wilbur. The parents unilaterally terminated Wilbur\'s visitation, leading to the children\'s severe depression. The children, influenced by their parents, began recounting detailed, uncorroborated "memories" of satanic abuse by Wilbur. After intervention by the Department of Social Services (DSS), the children recanted their allegations, attributing them to suggestions from Christina P. and Allan P. A court-ordered psychological report diagnosed Christina P. with a possible psychotic disorder and described a "Folie á Deux" shared delusion with the children. The appeals court affirmed the Family Court\'s findings of neglect and the change of custody to Wilbur O., concluding that the children\'s mental and emotional health was impaired by Christina P. and Allan P.\'s conduct.

Child Custody DisputeChild NeglectParental AlienationFalse Allegations of AbuseSatanic Ritual Abuse AllegationsPosttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)Shared Delusion (Folie á Deux)Family Court ActAppellate DecisionPsychological Evaluation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Imbierowicz v. A.O. Fox Memorial Hospital

The case involves an appeal from a judgment where the plaintiff, decedent's wife, brought a medical malpractice action after her husband died of cardiac arrest due to an undiagnosed aortic dissection. A jury initially found four defendants negligent: A.O. Fox Memorial Hospital, Benjamin Friedell, Capital Cardiology Associates, and John Gould, awarding significant damages. On appeal, the court found insufficient evidence to support Fox's separate liability. Furthermore, the court determined that the jury charge regarding the Noseworthy rule was improper, potentially leading the jury to apply a lesser burden of proof on negligence. The court also ruled that the plaintiff's economic expert's testimony regarding lost earnings was speculative, lacking proper foundation. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, the motion to set aside the verdict for Fox's separate liability was granted, and the matter was remitted for a new trial on liability for Friedell, Gould, and Capital Cardiology Associates, as well as on damages.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathAortic DissectionFailure to DiagnoseNegligenceProximate CauseJury Charge ErrorNoseworthy RuleDamages CalculationPecuniary Loss
References
26
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03554
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2019

Matter of Zavion O. (Donna O.)

This consolidated appeal addresses the legality of protective arrest warrants issued by Family Court for two infants, Zavion O. and Serenity R.L., who are chronic absconders from foster care. The infants exhibit significant behavioral and mental health challenges, leading Family Court to issue warrants under Family Court Act § 153 to ensure their health and safety. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed these orders, holding that FCA § 153 does not authorize protective arrests for non-respondent children who are not required as witnesses in a proceeding. The court emphasized Family Court's limited jurisdiction, stating that the 'parens patriae' doctrine cannot create statutory authority. While acknowledging the compelling need for effective tools to manage serial absconders, the court concluded that any such authorization must originate from the legislature.

Child WelfareFamily Court JurisdictionArrest Warrant LegalityProtective CustodyAbsconding ChildrenStatutory InterpretationParens Patriae DoctrineAppellate ReviewFoster CareJuvenile Delinquency
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 8,843 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