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

Chassman v. People Resources

The plaintiff sought the return of $1,850 paid to People Resources, a self-described 'organization for singles,' alleging the contract was void under General Business Law § 394-c, procured by fraud, and for lack of services. Defendant argued the law was inapplicable and that arbitration was mandated by the contract. The court determined that People Resources operates as a 'social referral service' under the broad interpretation of General Business Law § 394-c, despite its claim of merely providing a 'forum.' The contract was found to violate several statutory provisions, including charging excessive fees and lacking mandatory cancellation options, rendering it void and unenforceable due to its public policy implications. Consequently, the arbitration clause within the void contract was also deemed unenforceable, leading the court to grant the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and deny the defendant's.

Social Referral ServiceContract VoidabilitySummary JudgmentArbitration ClauseConsumer Protection LawGeneral Business LawUnenforceable ContractFraudulent MisrepresentationDating ServicesLegislative Intent
References
11
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05472 [187 AD3d 452]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2020

Richards v. Security Resources

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted defendant Security Resources' motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiff Alroy Richards' cross-motions. The court found that Security Resources timely moved to dismiss and that the plaintiff's denial of service was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service. Furthermore, the plaintiff's claims for wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation were dismissed for failing to state a cause of action. Negligence claims were barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, and the individual defendant, Joseph Katanga, was found not to have been properly served, rendering discovery motions moot.

Dismissal of complaintMotion to dismissService of processAffidavit of serviceWrongful dischargeAt-will employmentIntentional infliction of emotional distressDefamationQualified privilegeNegligence claims
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pennsylvania Engineering Corp. v. Islip Resource Recovery Agency

This action stems from a contractual dispute regarding the construction of a waste disposal plant between Pennsylvania Energy Resources Company (PERC), Pennsylvania Engineering Corporation (PEC), and the Islip Resource Recovery Agency. Following an arbitrator's decision finding PERC in default, which was confirmed by the court on April 12, 1989, dismissing plaintiffs' case, PERC and PEC moved to reargue and amend their complaint. They sought to vacate the arbitration award based on alleged arbitrator bias, attempting to relate back the amended complaint. The Court denied these motions, emphasizing that the Federal Arbitration Act's three-month statute of limitations for vacating an award has no common law or Rule 15(c) exceptions under these circumstances. The court further found that the plaintiffs were aware of potential bias at the time of selecting the arbitrator, thus precluding equitable tolling.

ArbitrationContractual DisputeSummary JudgmentFederal Arbitration ActRule 15cRelation Back DoctrineEquitable TollingArbitrator BiasStatute of LimitationsMotion to Amend
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03892 [185 AD3d 780]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2020

Croshier v. New Horizons Resources, Inc.

The plaintiff, Shelly Croshier, commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries after allegedly falling on the driveway of a group home owned and operated by the defendant, New Horizons Resources, Inc. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court found that the defendant failed to establish prima facie that the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall, lacked constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition, or that the condition was trivial. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied.

Premises LiabilitySummary JudgmentDangerous ConditionConstructive NoticeTrivial DefectPersonal InjuryFall AccidentDriveway SafetyAppellate ReviewDuty of Care
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2000

Pain Resource Center v. Travelers Insurance

This case addresses a dispute regarding the payment of first-party no-fault benefits to a health provider, Pain Resource Center, as the assignee of John Hiotis, who was injured in an auto accident. The defendant, Travelers Ins. Co., challenged the validity of the assignment and the necessity of the medical services provided. The court affirmed the validity of the assignment under New York's Insurance Law and related regulations. However, based on conflicting expert testimonies, the court limited the compensable medical services to six hours and awarded the plaintiff $566.10, along with statutory interest and attorney's fees.

No-Fault InsuranceFirst-Party BenefitsAssignment ValidityMedical ServicesPeer ReviewInsurance LawHealth Provider ClaimAutomobile AccidentDamagesStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. 95 Civ. 5106(AGS)(SEG)
Regular Panel Decision

Envirosource, Inc. v. Horsehead Resource Development Co.

The United States Magistrate Judge Grubin issued an opinion concerning Envirosource, Inc.'s application for sanctions against Horsehead Resource Development Co. due to the latter's persistent failure to complete document production. The defendant's continuous non-compliance with discovery orders resulted in significant delays and increased expenses for the plaintiff. The court firmly rejected all of the defendant's arguments against the imposition of sanctions, emphasizing the mandatory nature of awarding attorney's fees under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After a thorough review of the plaintiff's billing documentation, and implementing reductions for insufficient attorney experience details and excessive claimed hours, the court ultimately awarded Envirosource, Inc. $84,950.70 in attorney's fees.

Discovery AbuseSanctionsAttorney FeesDocument ProductionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureCourt OrdersNon-complianceBad FaithMagistrate JudgeFee Calculation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency

This memorandum-decision and order addresses defendants' motion for summary judgment in an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff, an African-American, alleged racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation by the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency (OCRRA) and individual defendants under Title VII, NYSHRL, and §§ 1981a, 1983. The court granted summary judgment for defendants, dismissing NYSHRL claims due to the election of remedies doctrine. Title VII claims against individual defendants were deemed redundant or untimely. The court found plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation, or to show pretext. Hostile work environment claims were dismissed for lack of exhaustion and insufficient evidence. Conspiracy and New York Public Authorities Law claims were also dismissed, leading to the closure of the case.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Law42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine
References
47
Case No. 2015-232 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Easy Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. 21 Century Advantage Ins. Co.

In this action, Easy Care Acupuncture, P.C., acting as an assignee, sought to recover first-party no-fault benefits from 21 Century Advantage Ins. Co. The plaintiff appealed an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The defendant successfully argued that it had fully paid the plaintiff for the services according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term affirmed the order, finding that the defendant's proof was sufficient to establish proper mailing of the denial of claim form and the correct application of the workers' compensation fee schedule.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAppellate TermFirst-Party BenefitsDenial of Claim FormInsurance DisputeAssigned BenefitsCivil CourtAcupuncture Services
References
1
Case No. 2016-334 S C
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2017

2 & 9 Acupuncture, P.C. v. 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by 2 & 9 Acupuncture, P.C. from an amended order that granted summary judgment to 21st Century Advantage Insurance Company, dismissing a complaint to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant argued it had paid the plaintiff in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the defendant failed to prima facie demonstrate proper denial of payment for services billed under CPT codes 97026 and 97016. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding these specific CPT codes was denied.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentCPT CodesWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewInsurance LawMedical BillingAcupunctureSuffolk CountyPayment Dispute
References
3
Case No. 2016-329 S C
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2017

Spineisland for Chiropractic, P.C. v. 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by Spineisland For Chiropractic, P.C., acting as an assignee, against 21st Century Advantage Insurance Company concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff sought to recover for services billed under CPT code 95831. The District Court of Suffolk County had previously granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, asserting that the defendant had appropriately paid the plaintiff based on the workers' compensation fee schedule. On appeal, the Appellate Term affirmed the lower court's decision. The Appellate Term found that the defendant had adequately demonstrated the proper application of CPT code 95833 for the services billed under CPT code 95831, and the plaintiff failed to present a triable issue of fact.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentCPT codeWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate TermSuffolk CountyAssigneeInsurance disputeChiropractic servicesMedical billing
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 367 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