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

Lowcher v. Beame

Plaintiff, a former school secretary, initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, the New York Teachers’ Retirement System, and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System. She alleged deprivation of her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection after her application for accident disability benefits was denied. The Medical Board of the New York Teachers’ Retirement System determined her disability was not proximately caused by a 1970 assault, and denied her requests for legal representation, witnesses, and access to a referred physician's report. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Judge Metzner denied the motion, ruling that while a full adversarial hearing was not required, the plaintiff was entitled to know the evidence upon which the Retirement System made its determination, implying a due process violation in denying access to the medical report.

Due ProcessEqual ProtectionCivil Rights ActionDisability BenefitsAccident DisabilityAdministrative LawMedical BoardRight to CounselCross-ExaminationAccess to Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mawhirt v. Ahmed

Kingsley Maw-hirt initiated this action on September 27, 1996, alleging violations of his procedural and substantive due process rights, as well as state law claims for false imprisonment and assault and battery, stemming from two involuntary psychiatric admissions to the University Hospital at Stony Brook in 1995. The District Court, presided over by Judge Spatt, converted the defendants' motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment. The Court granted all motions, dismissing the complaint in its entirety, finding that the plaintiff was afforded procedural due process under New York State Mental Hygiene Law and that the individual state and county defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for their objectively reasonable actions in confining and treating Mawhirt, based on multiple medical evaluations diagnosing paranoid schizophrenia and a substantial risk to himself and others. State law claims for false imprisonment against officers were dismissed due to lack of a notice of claim, while similar claims against doctors were precluded by qualified immunity. The claim for ineffective assistance of counsel was dismissed as court-appointed attorneys do not act under color of state law, and the state law assault and battery claim against Barbara Mawhirt was dismissed due to the court declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Involuntary commitmentPsychiatric treatmentDue process rightsFalse imprisonmentAssault and batteryQualified immunitySummary judgmentPro se plaintiffMental Hygiene LawSchizophrenia
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Algarin v. New York City Department of Correction

Morris Algarin, an officer with the New York City Department of Correction, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York State law, alleging due process violations and false imprisonment during his involuntary commitment at two hospitals. He moved for summary judgment against Dr. Mathur and Dr. Barouche, while other defendants cross-moved. The court denied Algarin's motion, stating that Mental Hygiene Law requirements do not dictate federal due process, which focuses on generally accepted medical standards for determining dangerousness. The court granted the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment, dismissing all claims with prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to provide admissible expert testimony proving a deviation from medical standards or an unconstitutional policy.

Involuntary commitmentDue process42 U.S.C. § 1983Mental Hygiene LawSummary judgmentMedical malpracticePsychiatric evaluationExpert testimonyQualified immunityFalse imprisonment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Paragon Process Service, Inc.

Paragon Process Service, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which held the company responsible for unemployment insurance contributions for its process servers from 1978 to 1980. Paragon contended that these process servers were independent contractors, not employees, over whom it exercised no control beyond legal requirements. The court, referencing precedents like *Matter of 12 Cornelia St. (Ross)*, determined that the Board lacked a rational basis for classifying the process servers as employees. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision. The matter was then remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings consistent with this new finding.

Unemployment insuranceIndependent contractorProcess serversEmployer liabilityEmployee classificationAppellate reviewAdministrative decisionRational basis reviewLabor lawNew York law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Orlik Ex Rel. Orlik v. Dutchess County

Plaintiff Sheryl Orlik, on behalf of herself and her son Jared, sued Dutchess County, the Dutchess County Department of Social Services (DSS), and several individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Orlik alleged violations of procedural due process, substantive due process, Fourth Amendment rights, and malicious prosecution stemming from the allegedly wrongful removal of Jared from her custody. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The court granted summary judgment, finding that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the procedural due process claim was denied due to a brief removal period, the substantive due process claim lacked egregious official conduct, the Fourth Amendment claim was supported by a reasonable belief in probable cause, and the malicious prosecution claim was not clearly established for civil Family Court proceedings. The motion was deemed moot for defendant Allers as he was sued only in his official capacity.

Qualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentChild RemovalProcedural Due ProcessSubstantive Due ProcessFourth AmendmentMalicious ProsecutionSocial Services LawChild Protective ServicesFoster Care
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

I.G. Second Generation Partners, L.P. v. Reade

This case concerns an appeal from multiple orders of the Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Alice Schlesinger. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, tortious interference with contract, and breach of implied contract. The court found that the malicious prosecution claim lacked probable cause, emphasizing that a prior judgment against the plaintiffs created a presumption of probable cause not overcome by subsequent reversal. The abuse of process claim failed as there was no indication of perverted use of process for a collateral advantage. Furthermore, the tortious interference claim was barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and proposed amendments for implied contract theories were properly denied due to a lack of meeting of the minds and absence of unjust enrichment.

malicious prosecutionabuse of processtortious interference with contractbreach of implied contractNoerr-Pennington doctrineprobable causeamendment of complaintunjust enrichmentaffirmationappellate review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Estiverne v. Esernio-Jenssen

The case involves a lawsuit against a doctor and hospitals concerning the detention and testing of an infant (A.E.) for suspected child abuse, and their role in the subsequent removal of all infant children from parental custody. Plaintiffs alleged constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including procedural and substantive due process, and Fourth Amendment rights, alongside New York state common law claims for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, medical malpractice, and gross negligence. The court granted summary judgment on procedural due process, § 1983 malicious prosecution, state law malicious prosecution, and unlawful imprisonment claims, and dismissed substantive due process claims related to A.E.'s hospital detention. However, the court denied summary judgment for Infant Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims, all plaintiffs’ substantive due process claims related to the court-ordered removal, and Infant Plaintiffs’ medical malpractice and gross negligence claims, deeming these suitable for trial.

child abusecivil rightsSection 1983Fourth AmendmentFourteenth Amendmentmedical malpracticegross negligencesummary judgmentqualified immunityparental rights
References
59
Case No. ADJ6985337
Regular
Jul 02, 2012

Richard Brennan vs. Los Angeles Kings, Federal Insurance Company

This case concerns a workers' compensation applicant whose deposition was repeatedly missed, delaying discovery. The defendant employer requested removal of an order setting a trial date due to due process concerns regarding discovery and trial scope. The Appeals Board granted removal, amending the prior order to allow the admission of qualified medical examiner deposition transcripts, finding the defendant exercised due diligence. The Board affirmed the trial date but ensured the record would remain open for these crucial depositions.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedOther SettlementDue ProcessDiscoveryDepositionQualified Medical EvaluatorsQMEMandatory Settlement ConferenceMSC
References
0
Case No. ADJ3714425 (FRE 0234250) ADJ896033 (FRE 0171714)
Regular
Aug 22, 2014

MICHAEL WRIGHT vs. STAR MEDIA, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding a WCJ's order that enforced a reimbursement order against Travelers Indemnity Company. The Board found the reimbursement order void *ab initio* due to procedural due process infirmities. Specifically, the "self-destruct" clause in the order did not comport with due process protections outlined in precedent cases like *Mitchell v. Golden Eagle Ins.*, failing to guarantee a review of objections or automatically void the order upon valid objection. Therefore, Travelers' due process rights were violated, necessitating the rescission of the WCJ's findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder for ReimbursementCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Cumulative Trauma InjuryAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)ApportionmentDue ProcessSelf-Destruct ClauseVoid Ab Initio
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 11,341 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