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

Cady v. Andrews

Gerald A. Cady, a Broome County Deputy Sheriff, suffered injuries in a patrol car accident in 1979. He and his wife sued Sheriff Andrews and the County of Broome for negligence in vehicle maintenance. Defendants moved for summary judgment, citing the Workers' Compensation Law and constitutional immunity for the county. The court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint against the county due to constitutional immunity and the inapplicability of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 to police vehicles. The action against Sheriff Andrews was also dismissed, with the court finding the Workers' Compensation Law to be a bar given the deputy's effective joint employment.

Workers' CompensationGovernmental ImmunityVicarious LiabilitySheriff's DepartmentPolice VehiclesVehicle and Traffic LawConstitutional LawEmployment StatusSummary Judgment
References
14
Case No. CV-23-2014
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Andrew DeWolf

Claimant, Andrew P. DeWolf, an emergency medical technician for Wayne County, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging binaural hearing loss due to prolonged workplace noise exposure. While the Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that the claimant failed to provide competent medical evidence to establish a causally-related occupational disease. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding the medical opinions from two otolaryngologists to be speculative due to insufficient data on noise levels, duration of exposure, and the claimant's recreational hunting history. The court also dismissed the claimant's arguments regarding jurisdiction and due process.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseHearing LossCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewEMTWorkplace Noise ExposureSpeculative Medical OpinionDue Process
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Andrews v. Bruk

The case addresses the tort of intentional infliction of severe emotional distress. Plaintiff Mr. Andrews sued defendant Dr. Bruk, alleging that Dr. Bruk improperly accessed Mr. Andrews' confidential hospital records, specifically regarding a vasectomy, and used them as an exhibit in Dr. Bruk's own divorce action without consent. Plaintiff also claimed a violation of his right to privacy, but the court noted New York does not recognize a common-law right to privacy for such disputes. However, the court found that Dr. Bruk's actions, involving the unauthorized acquisition and use of confidential medical records, could reasonably be regarded as 'extreme and outrageous conduct,' satisfying the rigorous standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Therefore, the defendant's application to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint was denied.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressRight to PrivacyMedical Records ConfidentialityUnauthorized DisclosureExtreme and Outrageous ConductTort LawMotion to DismissPhysician-Patient PrivilegeCivil Rights LawCPLR
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 1999

In re Carlin

The respondent, Andrew C. Carlin, faced eight charges of professional misconduct, including neglecting legal matters for clients Barbara Ferro and Bella Casale, breaching fiduciary duties, and repeatedly failing to cooperate with the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District's investigations. The Special Referee sustained all charges, leading the Grievance Committee to move for confirmation of the report. The court confirmed the Special Referee's report and denied Carlin's cross-motion to disaffirm. As a result, Andrew C. Carlin was suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, commencing August 6, 1999.

Professional MisconductAttorney SuspensionNegligenceFailure to CooperateBreach of Fiduciary DutyDisciplinary ProceedingNinth Judicial DistrictDR 6-101(A)(3)DR 1-102(A)(5)DR 1-102(A)(8)
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, LLC

This Memorandum and Order addresses defendant Blick Art Materials, LLC's motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Victor Andrews, a legally blind individual. Andrews alleges that Blick's website, dickblick.com, is inaccessible to the visually impaired, violating federal, state, and city disability laws, including the ADA. The court denied the motion, ruling that the ADA's Title III, which prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, applies to commercial websites. The decision emphasized a broad interpretation of "public accommodation" to include online services, rejecting arguments for dismissal based on physical nexus, primary jurisdiction, and due process concerns related to a lack of specific web accessibility regulations. The court found that the plaintiff had stated a claim under the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, and directed the parties to proceed with discovery and further litigation, including a "Science Day" to explore available technologies.

Website AccessibilityAmericans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationPublic AccommodationOnline ServicesMotion to DismissStatutory InterpretationNew York State LawNew York City LawVisually Impaired
References
56
Case No. 2022-06115
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2025

Matter of Plasse

The Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts initiated disciplinary proceedings against attorney Andrew F. Plasse for professional misconduct involving his escrow account. Plasse faced four charges: misappropriating client funds through deficiencies in his escrow account, commingling personal and client funds by depositing earned legal fees, routinely failing to promptly withdraw earned fees, and failing to maintain accurate bookkeeping records. A Special Referee sustained all charges, which Plasse did not contest, offering mitigation. Considering Plasse's prior disciplinary history, including a public censure, the Court granted the motion to confirm the report and suspended him from the practice of law for a period of one year, commencing October 10, 2025.

Attorney disciplineProfessional misconductEscrow account violationsClient fund misappropriationCommingling fundsBookkeeping failuresLawyer suspensionGrievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionJudicial ethics
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02155
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

Matter of Keeney v. Andrews

Claimant Phyllis Keeney, a home health aide, sustained injuries to her pelvis and left wrist in June 2018. Following her request for further action, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed her claim for causally-related back and hip injuries. Claimant's subsequent application for administrative review by the Workers' Compensation Board was denied because her counsel failed to provide the required attestation of electronic signature, as per the Board's emergency relief guidelines. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the application due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.

Electronic Signature AttestationAdministrative Review DenialProcedural Non-ComplianceWorkers' Compensation Board AuthorityAppellate Division AffirmationCOVID-19 Emergency ReliefForm RB-89Judiciary Law § 43112 NYCRR 300.13Home Health Aide Injury
References
9
Case No. ADJ9151950
Regular
Mar 19, 2018

PETER YOON vs. GLIDEWELL LABORATORIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Peter Yoon's Petition for Removal against Glidewell Laboratories. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate. The WCAB found the Workers' Compensation Judge's analysis of the arguments persuasive, concluding that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse decision is ultimately issued. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationinadequate remedyCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10843(a)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sasser v. Kelley

Petitioner Andrew Sasser, convicted of capital murder, sought federal habeas corpus relief due to ineffective assistance of counsel during his sentencing phase. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case, requiring a determination of whether Sasser was ineligible for the death penalty due to intellectual disability (an Atkins claim) and consideration of four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. This Court focused on three ineffective assistance claims: failure to prepare for the sentencing phase, failure to obtain a timely psychological evaluation, and failure to meaningfully consult with a mental health professional. The Court found that trial counsel's failure to conduct a thorough investigation, timely obtain a psychological evaluation, and meaningfully consult with a qualified mental health professional constituted ineffective assistance. Consequently, postconviction counsel's failure to raise these claims was also deemed ineffective, excusing procedural default. The petition for habeas corpus relief was granted.

Ineffective assistance of counselHabeas corpusDeath penaltyIntellectual disabilityProcedural defaultAtkins claimSentencing phaseMitigation evidencePsychological evaluationMental health expert
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Butler

Plaintiff William A. Davis, a general employee of Livingston Services, Inc., was assigned to work for Andrew 'Andy' Butler, a general contractor. Davis sued Butler, but the Supreme Court erred in denying Butler's motion for summary judgment. The appellate court found that Davis was a special employee of Butler as a matter of law, meaning his action against Butler was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provisions. Despite Livingston paying wages and providing workers' compensation benefits, Butler maintained complete control and supervision over Davis's work. Therefore, the order of the Supreme Court was reversed, Butler's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint against Butler was dismissed.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeGeneral ContractorSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewEmployer ControlLabor LawNew York LawSteuben County
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 149 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