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

Smith v. Apfel

The plaintiff applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits, alleging disability since August 1993 due to bipolar disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and phobias. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the claim, a decision upheld by the Appeals Council. The plaintiff subsequently brought this matter to the District Court, contending that the ALJ misapplied legal standards by failing to properly weigh his treating physician's opinion, incorrectly concluding his impairments did not meet a listed impairment, and inadequately describing his work capabilities. The court found that the ALJ failed to apply the proper legal standard to the treating physician's opinion and improperly discredited the plaintiff's subjective complaints by mischaracterizing evidence in the record. As a result, the court reversed the ALJ's decision and remanded the case, ordering reconsideration of the treating physician's opinion, the plaintiff's functional limitations, and further development of the record concerning the plaintiff's residual functional capacity.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActSSISSDIBipolar DisorderADHDPhobiasTreating Physician RuleALJ ErrorRemand
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vay v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Plaintiff Emily R. Vay sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff alleged disability due to anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, pervasive development disorder, Asperger's syndrome, and learning disability since January 16, 2014. Her application was initially denied, and after a hearing before Administrative Law Judge William M. Manico, an unfavorable decision was issued on January 21, 2016, which became the Commissioner's final decision after the Appeals Council denied review on May 26, 2017. Before the District Court, both parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff argued that the ALJ failed to develop the record regarding recent treatment, improperly assessed her credibility, and mischaracterized her impairments, leading to an unsupported Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) finding. The Court, presided over by Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford, granted the Commissioner's motion and denied Plaintiff's motion, finding that the Commissioner's determination was supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error. The Court concluded that the ALJ adequately developed the record, made a reasonable credibility assessment based on conflicting evidence, and properly assessed Plaintiff's impairments and RFC.

Supplemental Security IncomeSocial Security ActDisability BenefitsALJ Decision ReviewResidual Functional CapacityCredibility AssessmentRecord DevelopmentAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderAnxiety DisorderAutism Spectrum Disorder
References
27
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05929
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2018

Matter of Pelsinger

The Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District moved to confirm a Special Referee's report which sustained 13 charges of professional misconduct against attorney Kenneth S. Pelsinger. The charges included dishonesty, fraud, misappropriation of client funds, and failure to cooperate with investigations. Pelsinger sought mitigation due to untreated major depressive disorder and attention deficit disorder, proposing public censure or a monitoring program. The Appellate Division, Second Department, found that Pelsinger failed to establish a causal link between his disorders and the misconduct, noting his extensive disciplinary history, including a prior three-year suspension for similar offenses. The court determined that Pelsinger's conduct was intentional and deceptive, and ordered his immediate disbarment.

Attorney MisconductDisbarmentProfessional ResponsibilityMisappropriation of FundsFraudFailure to CooperateDisciplinary HistoryMitigating FactorsGrievance CommitteeDefault Judgment
References
6
Case No. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meehan v. Patchogue-Medford School District

Bradley Meehan, a student with Attention Deficit Disorder, sued the Patchogue-Medford School District under various federal and state disability laws, alleging the school failed to provide appropriate educational services for his needs. The School District filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting that Meehan had not exhausted his administrative remedies as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Meehan contended that his efforts to pursue administrative relief were obstructed by the School District. The Court, presided over by Judge Spatt, denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that Meehan's failure to exhaust administrative remedies was excusable because the School District prevented him from accessing proper administrative hearings. Therefore, Meehan's federal and state law claims were permitted to proceed.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation Act of 1973New York State Executive LawSpecial Education NeedsAttention Deficit DisorderExhaustion of Administrative RemediesMotion to DismissDue Process RightsSchool District Negligence
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weathers v. Millbrook Central School District

Plaintiff Patricia Weathers, on behalf of her minor son Michael M., initiated an action against various defendants, including the Millbrook Central School District, school officials, doctors Lynne Liptay and Julia Speicher, and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), alleging claims related to Michael's prescription of Ritalin and Paxil for attention deficit and social anxiety disorders. Earlier claims against the school defendants and a psychologist were dismissed. The doctor defendants moved to dismiss the remaining medical malpractice claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims, as the federal claims (under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) that established original jurisdiction had already been dismissed with prejudice. Consequently, the medical malpractice claims against the doctor defendants were dismissed without prejudice, while claims against GSK were retained under diversity jurisdiction.

JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionMedical MalpracticeFederal QuestionDiversity JurisdictionDismissal Without PrejudiceRule 12(b)(1)Products LiabilityNegligenceAttention Deficit Disorder
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of John Z.

This case involves an appeal from an order recommitting the respondent to petitioner's custody due to a dangerous mental disorder. The respondent, with a history of multiple killings and a prior finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, had his parole revoked after exhibiting aggressive and threatening behavior upon conditional release. The Supreme Court determined he suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder with narcissistic and paranoid features, which was deemed a dangerous mental disorder justifying civil confinement under CPL 330.20. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the argument that the diagnosis was legally insufficient and upholding the finding of current dangerousness based on expert testimony, the respondent's history of violence, and his lack of insight into his condition.

dangerous mental disordercivil confinementantisocial personality disordernarcissistic featuresparanoid featuresCPL 330.20recommitmentmental illnessparole revocationexpert testimony
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 1994

Claim of Ferber v. New York Department of Corrections

The claimant, a correction officer, was held hostage in 1975 but sought no immediate medical attention. Sixteen years later, in 1991, while undergoing treatment for an eating disorder, she was diagnosed with work-related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from the 1975 incident. Her claim for workers' compensation benefits was subsequently controverted. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled the claim time-barred and lacked merit due to insufficient credible medical evidence establishing a causal link between the 1975 incident and her 1991 disablement. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of no causal connection, thereby obviating the need to address the timeliness issue.

Posttraumatic Stress DisorderPTSDCorrectional OfficerHostage IncidentWorkers' CompensationCausal NexusMedical EvidenceTimelinessAffirmationBoard Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 1996

Claim of Palevsky v. New York City Board of Education

In 1986, while working as an education associate in the Bronx, the claimant sustained a fractured nose due to a student altercation and filed a timely workers' compensation claim, receiving benefits. The case remained open for a pending nasal surgery issue. Years later, in 1992, the claimant sought compensation for alleged consequential posttraumatic stress disorder. The self-insured employer, the New York City Board of Education, argued that Workers' Compensation Law § 28, a two-year statute of limitations, barred this new claim. However, both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed that Section 28 does not apply to consequential injuries. Upon appeal, the Court concurred, holding that a subsequent claim for disability compensation related to injuries in an earlier, timely claim is not barred by the two-year limit for amendment.

Workers' CompensationPosttraumatic Stress DisorderStatute of LimitationsConsequential InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 28Time BarBoard DecisionAppealWorkplace InjuryNasal Fracture
References
3
Case No. 2024-60-5331
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2025

Umberger, Tucker v. Michael Ignatz d/b/a Attention to Details, LLC

Tucker Umberger (Petitioner) requested medical and temporary disability benefits from Michael Ignatz d/b/a Attention to Details, LLC (Respondent). The Court had previously ruled Mr. Umberger was an employee and entitled to medical benefits. With additional medical proof, Mr. Umberger now seeks temporary disability benefits, which Mr. Ignatz did not oppose. The Court found Mr. Umberger likely to prevail for past temporary disability benefits, concluding he suffered multiple spine fractures from a work fall and was off work from May 28 through October 17, 2024, as per Dr. Scott Zuckerberg. The Court ordered Mr. Ignatz to immediately pay Mr. Umberger $11,924.08 in past temporary total disability benefits and deemed Mr. Umberger eligible to request benefits from the Uninsured Employers Fund.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Total DisabilityUninsured Employers FundEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorSpine FracturesConstruction AccidentExpedited HearingBenefit DeterminationMedical Benefits
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 610 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