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
Apr 27, 2012

China Auto Care, LLC v. China Auto Care (Caymans)

Plaintiffs China Auto Care, LLC and China Auto Care Holdings, LLC brought an action against China Auto Care (Caymans), Digisec Corporation, and the estate of Chander Oberoi, alleging various causes of action stemming from the 2011 sale of Digisec's assets. Defendants sought to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in the parties' "Business Relationship and Shareholder Agreement." The court analyzed the scope of the arbitration clause under the Federal Arbitration Act. Finding the clause to be broad, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims were within its scope, as they "touch matters" governed by the Shareholder Agreement. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion, staying the litigation and compelling arbitration.

ArbitrationShareholder AgreementCorporate DisputeMotion to CompelFederal Arbitration ActSecond Circuit PrecedentFraudulent InducementCorporate GovernanceCayman Islands LawStay of Proceedings
References
25
Case No. ADJ9927385
Regular
Sep 12, 2016

VAHAK AMIRIAN vs. MERCEDES & BMW AUTO PARTS & DISMANTLING, INCOPRORATED, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, UNINSURED

This case involves a defendant, Mercedes & BMW Auto Parts & Dismantling, Inc., seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB denied the petition, upholding the finding that the applicant, Vahak Amirian, was an employee, not a partner, based on a lack of credible evidence of a partnership. The WCAB also affirmed the finding that the defendant willfully failed to maintain workers' compensation insurance, rejecting the defendant's claims of good faith belief they had no employees. The WCAB gave significant weight to the judge's credibility determinations regarding witness testimony.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEmployee vs. PartnerUninsured EmployerLabor Code Section 4554Willful Failure to InsureCredibility DeterminationFindings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ Report
References
5
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03615
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2025

Breslin v. Access Auto Sales & Serv., LLC

Matthew M. Breslin, a cable technician, was injured after falling from an extension ladder while installing new cable service. He and his wife filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence against Access Auto Sales, Spectrum, and National Grid entities. The Supreme Court denied all parties' motions for summary judgment, citing numerous questions of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to defendants for claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, and dismissing Access Auto's cross-claims for indemnification/contribution, finding no evidence of their negligence or supervisory control. However, the denials of summary judgment for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims were affirmed, as factual disputes remained regarding the adequacy of safety equipment and the proximate cause of the accident.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Labor Law Section 200Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentLadder accidentElevation-related hazardConstruction workProximate causeIndemnification
References
30
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07024
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2017

Matter of Piorkowski v. Pat Forsha Truck & Auto

Claimant David J. Piorkowski suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2006 during his employment with Pat Forsha Truck & Auto, leading to surgeries and ongoing symptoms. In 2014, he filed a separate claim, alleging a new left knee injury while working for Wal-Mart, stemming from two incidents in September 2014 where he assisted customers. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board determined that the 2014 incidents constituted an exacerbation of his preexisting condition rather than a new injury, disallowing the claim. Pat Forsha Truck & Auto appealed the Board's decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, citing the Board's expertise in distinguishing between new injuries and exacerbations, and its authority to resolve conflicting medical opinions. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the September 2014 incidents did not represent new injuries.

Workers' Compensation Law JudgePreexisting ConditionCausation DisputeMedical EvidenceAppellate Division Third DepartmentBoard Decision AffirmedIndustrial AccidentOrthopedic SurgeryIndependent Medical ExaminationWork-Related Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Buffalo Civic Auto Ramps, Inc. v. Serio

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviewed a determination by the Superintendent of Insurance, dated January 29, 2003, which reclassified parking ramp cashiers of Buffalo Civic Auto Ramps, Inc. (BCAR) from clerical "office employees" (Code 8810) to "automobile parking lot and drivers" (Code 8392) for workers’ compensation purposes. BCAR challenged this reclassification, arguing it was unsupported by substantial evidence and arbitrary and capricious, as their cashiers' duties were comparable to other clerical workers classified under Code 8810. The court found the Superintendent's determination lacked substantial evidence, noting no proof of increased hazard for BCAR cashiers compared to pari-mutuel clerks or bus terminal cashiers. The court also deemed the determination arbitrary and capricious due to inconsistent treatment of similarly situated cashiers. Consequently, the court vacated and annulled the Superintendent's determination and remanded the matter to the New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board for further proceedings.

ReclassificationWorkers' Compensation InsuranceAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceArbitrary and CapriciousInsurance LawClerical ClassificationParking Garage Industry
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00333 [168 AD3d 1240]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2019

Matter of Vazquez v. Skuffy Auto Body Shop

Luis Vazquez, an auto body technician, sustained a work-related back injury in 2013 and received workers' compensation benefits. His benefits were suspended in November 2015, and upon his application for reinstatement, the carrier alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a due to undisclosed work for a landscaping business. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found no violation, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, determining that Vazquez knowingly made material misrepresentations about his return to work and was subject to mandatory disqualification of benefits from April 25, 2016, to December 28, 2016, and future indemnity benefits after December 29, 2016. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Vazquez violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by making false representations and omissions regarding his work activity to obtain benefits. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Board's imposition of a penalty disqualifying him from future indemnity benefits, citing a pattern of deceit.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraudulent MisrepresentationDisqualification of BenefitsUndisclosed Work ActivityCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardIndemnity BenefitsLandscaping Business
References
5
Case No. 2015-1243 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Acupuncture Healthcare Plaza I, P.C. v. Metlife Auto & Home

The case involves Acupuncture Healthcare Plaza I, P.C., as assignee of Boris Goldbaum, suing Metlife Auto & Home for first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant had paid a reduced sum, arguing the remaining amount exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule and that one claim was subject to a policy deductible. During a nonjury trial, the parties stipulated to the plaintiff's prima facie case and timely denials. The defendant sought judicial notice of the workers' compensation fee schedule but failed to provide a witness to testify on its proper utilization or evidence for the deductible reduction. The Civil Court granted judgment to the plaintiff, which was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Term, Second Department. The Appellate Term noted that while judicial notice of the fee schedule is permissible, the party seeking it must provide sufficient information and notice to the adverse party, and the fee schedule alone doesn't prove proper utilization of codes or reduction due to a deductible without supporting evidence.

No-fault insuranceMedical billing disputeAppellate reviewJudicial noticeBurden of proofFee schedule applicationPolicy deductibleAssigned claimsCivil procedureEvidence admissibility
References
5
Case No. 2013-2706 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2016

NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

This case, NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., concerned an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County. The plaintiff, NYS Acupuncture, P.C., sought assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm, which had moved for summary judgment arguing full payment according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Civil Court initially granted State Farm's motion. On appeal, NYS Acupuncture, P.C. contended that the fee schedule reductions were improper. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the prior ruling, finding that State Farm adequately demonstrated it had fully compensated the plaintiff for acupuncture services based on the applicable workers' compensation fee schedule for services performed by chiropractors, referencing Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co.

Workers' Compensation Fee ScheduleNo-Fault BenefitsAcupuncture ServicesChiropractorsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeFee Schedule ReductionAssigned BenefitsMedical Billing
References
1
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00955
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2024

Darwish Auto Group, LLC v. TD Bank, N.A.

Plaintiffs Darwish Auto Group, LLC and Darwish General Corp. commenced an action against TD Bank, N.A. and Walid Darwish, alleging that Walid Darwish unilaterally modified bank account access for various users, which TD Bank subsequently refused to reverse without his individual approval. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction and a declaratory judgment. The Supreme Court granted the preliminary injunction and later denied Walid Darwish's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed Supreme Court's decisions to grant the preliminary injunction and deny the motion to dismiss, finding plaintiffs established a probability of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury, and a favorable balance of equities. However, the Appellate Division modified the order concerning the preliminary injunction by reversing the sum of the undertaking, remitting the matter to Supreme Court to determine an appropriate amount that bears a rational relation to potential damages Walid Darwish could suffer.

Preliminary InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractBanking DisputesCorporate GovernanceManagement AuthorityShareholder DisputesAppellate ProcedureUndertaking Requirements
References
35
Case No. 2017-913 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2019

Oriental Health Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal initiated by Oriental Health Acupuncture, P.C., acting as the assignee of Carrington, Earnel, against State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. The appeal originated from an order by the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which had granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint seeking first-party no-fault benefits. The Civil Court's decision was predicated on the finding that the amounts claimed by the plaintiff exceeded the limits established by the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's order. This decision was made in conjunction with a related case, BQE Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., decided concurrently.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentAppellate reviewWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAutomobile insuranceFirst-party benefitsMedical provider claimAssigned benefitsCivil Court appealAppellate Term decision
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 280 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