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. ADJ7038469
Regular
Sep 17, 2014

AZIZA SAYED vs. GIORGIO ARMANI, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant's petition to appeal an Administrative Director's Independent Bill Review (IBR) determination was dismissed. The Board found the petition premature as it was not first heard by a trial level Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). Additionally, the petition failed to comply with numerous procedural requirements, including proper captioning, verification, service, and stating specific grounds for appeal. Consequently, both the petition for reconsideration and the petition appealing the IBR determination were dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Bill ReviewPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative DirectorLabor Code section 4603.6MAXIMUS Federal ServicesInc.Lien claimantOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleWCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure
References
0
Case No. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05204 [186 AD3d 1679]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2020

Matter of Board of Mgrs. of Half Moon Bay Mar. Condominium v. Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Assn., Inc.

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by the Board of Managers of Half Moon Bay Marina Condominium and Maria Elena DiBella against the Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Association, Inc. The dispute arose over the voting rights of Marina directors on the HOA Board, which the HOA Board sought to restrict. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, ruled in favor of the petitioners, compelling the HOA Board to allow unrestricted voting. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, determining that the HOA's bylaws regarding voting rights were ambiguous. The court found that extrinsic evidence, including the HOA Board's historical practice, supported the interpretation that all directors had an unrestricted right to vote on all HOA matters.

Bylaws InterpretationVoting RightsCondominium LawHomeowners AssociationCPLR Article 78Contract InterpretationExtrinsic EvidenceBoard of DirectorsAppellate ReviewAmbiguity
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connolly v. Williams

The court unanimously confirmed the determination of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, which found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and terminated his employment as a court officer. The misconduct involved unwanted physical contact and sexually suggestive remarks directed at three female co-workers. The petition challenging this determination was denied, and the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78 was dismissed. The court found substantial evidence supported the misconduct findings and that the penalty of dismissal was not unduly harsh. It also ruled that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the hearing officer's in camera review of investigative files or the denial of an adjournment to subpoena additional witnesses.

MisconductEmployment TerminationCourt OfficerSexual HarassmentDue ProcessDisciplinary ActionAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceFairness of Penalty
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gallishaw v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Plaintiff William Gallishaw sought judicial review of the Social Security Administration's denial of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had previously found Plaintiff not disabled, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. The District Court determined that the ALJ erred by improperly discounting the opinions of Plaintiff's treating and examining physicians (Dr. Nangia, Dr. Thukral, Dr. Fkiaras) and his credibility, while unduly relying on a non-examining physician (Dr. Fuchs). The Court found the ALJ's residual functional capacity (RFC) determination and step-five findings regarding available jobs to be unsupported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner's cross-motion, and remanded the case for a determination of benefits, concluding there was persuasive proof of disability.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleMedical evidenceCredibility assessmentLumbar spine myofascitisChronic synovitisLeft knee derangement
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Templeton v. Veterans Administration

The plaintiff, a probationary federal employee, filed a pro se complaint against the Veterans Administration’s Medical Center, alleging racial discrimination under Title VII and challenging his discharge on other grounds. The court found venue improper for the discrimination claim, noting it should be in California or Missouri based on statutory provisions. For the non-discrimination claim, the court determined the plaintiff failed to show procedural defects or arbitrary action in his dismissal, as the VA followed established regulations and provided rational bases for termination. Consequently, the non-discrimination claim was dismissed, and the discrimination claim was transferred to the Central District of California due to improper venue.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIIFederal EmploymentVenueProbationary EmployeeWrongful DischargeDue ProcessProperty InterestLiberty InterestAdministrative Decision
References
18
Case No. ADJ9772365 (MF) ADJ10082338
Regular
Dec 06, 2016

Leonel Hidalgo vs. Hilbert Property Management, Technology Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, treating it instead as a Petition for Removal. The WCAB granted removal, rescinded the Joint Findings of Fact, and returned the matter for further proceedings. This action was based on the Medical Director applying the incorrect standard when determining that an orthopedic QME panel was in the applicant's medical interest. The WCAB found that the Medical Director should have first determined if the applicant's chosen chiropractic specialty was medically or otherwise inappropriate, as required by Administrative Director Rule 31.5(a)(10).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelspecialty determinationorthopedicschiropracticMedical DirectorAdministrative Director RuleLabor CodePetition for Reconsideration
References
9
Case No. ADJ3033041 (SBR 0286165)
Regular
Dec 09, 2014

MARIO MORALES, SR. vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition to appeal an Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination. The petition was dismissed because it failed to comply with WCAB rules regarding caption information, service of process, verification, and specificity of grounds. Specifically, the applicant did not properly identify the defendant, failed to serve all parties or the IMR Unit, and did not verify the petition or provide detailed grounds for appeal. The WCAB emphasized that appeals must strictly adhere to procedural requirements, including filing at the correct venue and allowing for a WCJ decision before appealing to the Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical ReviewUtilization ReviewPetition to ReopenStipulated AwardElectronic Adjudication Management SystemAdministrative DirectorWCAB Rules of Practice and ProcedureCalifornia Code of RegulationsLabor Code
References
0
Case No. Z docket
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2007

Matter of Administration for Children's Servs. v. Silvia S.

The Administration for Children's Services (ACS) filed a motion in Family Court, Queens County, seeking an order to compel the respondent, Silvia S., to produce her psychological, psychiatric, and medical records. ACS argued that these records were necessary to investigate allegations of child neglect involving Silvia S. and her child, Daniel C., following incidents related to her seizure disorder, homelessness, and postpartum depression. The court, presided over by Judge Edwina G. Richardson-Mendelson, denied the motion. The judge found that ACS had not demonstrated a meritorious cause of action for neglect and was improperly seeking pre-petition disclosure to determine if a cause of action existed. The court also emphasized the need for confidentiality under HIPAA and Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13, concluding that the interest of justice did not outweigh the respondent's need for privacy given the lack of a stated cause of action and no harm to the child.

Child NeglectMedical Records DisclosurePsychiatric RecordsPsychological RecordsPre-Petition DisclosureCPLR 3102(c)Family Court Act § 1038(d)HIPAAMental Hygiene Law § 33.13Confidentiality
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 12,641 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