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. 2021 NY Slip Op 01050 [191 AD3d 884]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2021

Matter of Faith A. M. (Faith M.)

The mother, Faith M., appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which found her to have derivatively neglected her child, Faith A.M. This finding stemmed from a prior neglect determination in May 2014 concerning her other children due to excessive corporal punishment, which the court deemed proximate in time to the current proceeding. The evidence presented, including statements from siblings, testimony from a school counselor, and observations of injuries, corroborated the ongoing use of excessive corporal punishment. The Family Court's assessment of the mother's credibility, finding her denials incredible, was supported by the record, reinforced by her guilty plea to disorderly conduct related to similar allegations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, as the mother failed to provide evidence that the circumstances leading to the neglect finding no longer existed.

Child NeglectDerivative NeglectCorporal PunishmentFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewParental JudgmentPreponderance of EvidenceCredibilityPrior FindingsRisk of Harm
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eaton v. Chahal

This consolidated decision by Justice William H. Keniry addresses common discovery issues across six negligence actions in Rensselaer County Supreme Court. The primary focus is the requirement for a "good faith" effort to resolve discovery disputes, as mandated by section 202.7 of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR). The court emphasizes that a "good faith" effort necessitates significant contact and negotiation between counsel. Due to a complete failure to comply with this rule, the motions and cross-motions in five cases (Eaton, Frament, Lindeman, Madsen, and Malave) are denied. In the Oathout case, the defendants' motion is conditionally granted, pending plaintiff's compliance with discovery demands. The court also outlines its position on substantive discovery issues like medical reports, collateral source information, statutory violations, age/date of birth, photographs, and authorizations for workers' compensation and no-fault insurance files.

Discovery disputesBill of particularsGood faith requirementCPLR Article 31Medical reportsCollateral source informationStatutory violationsWorkers' compensation filesNo-fault insurance filesJudicial discretion
References
19
Case No. ADJ16728100; ADJ16728102
Regular
Oct 06, 2025

MARCO ORTIZ vs. AZTECA LANDSCAPE INC.; CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY dba BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

Cost petitioner, Tony Barriere Interpreting Service, Inc., sought reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Order issued by the WCJ on June 16, 2025. The petitioner contended that discovery issues were relevant and that the defendant engaged in bad faith by unreasonably delaying payment. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's recommendation, finding that the defendant's conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith and that the underlying bill had been paid with a self-imposed penalty.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrderCost PetitionerTony Barriere Interpreting ServiceBad Faith ActionsUnreasonable DelayLabor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10545(h)Sanctions
References
9
Case No. ADJ6679249
Regular
Jun 08, 2010

GREG TOBER vs. GARVEY SCHOOL DISTRICT; PERMISSIBLY SELF-INSURED, ADMINISTERED BY YORK, FORMERLY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RISK MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order imposing sanctions under Labor Code section 5813. The original order found the defendant's attorney liable for sanctions due to alleged bad-faith actions and unnecessary delay in responding to discovery requests. Upon review, the WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the original order, and denied both the applicant's petition for attorney's fees and the defendant's petition for sanctions. The WCAB determined that while there was a delay, the defendant's actions did not meet the legal threshold for bad faith, frivolousness, or intentional delay required by section 5813.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5813SanctionsWCJdiscovery issuebad faithfrivolousunnecessary delayPetition for Discovery Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ11080934
Regular
Oct 28, 2025

JUAN MARTINEZ vs. CREAM OF THE CROP AG SERVICE, INC.; CA FARM MANAGEMENT, INC.

The applicant, Juan Martinez, sought reconsideration of a prior decision that reversed a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) order imposing sanctions against the defendant for alleged frivolous tactics. The Appeals Board originally found insufficient evidence of bad-faith conduct by the defendant, Cream of the Crop AG Service, Inc. and CA Farm Management, Inc. In this petition, the applicant sought clarification on the standard of review and claimed certain issues were not addressed. The Board denied the applicant's petition, reiterating its finding that the defendant's actions did not constitute bad-faith litigation tactics under Labor Code section 5813, and confirmed that the responsibility for pursuing discovery, such as a neuropsychological evaluation recommended by Dr. Bhatia in 2018, did not rest solely on the defendant.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5813SanctionsAttorneys' FeesFrivolous TacticsBad Faith ConductNeuropsychology EvaluationAdditional PanelsReconsideration Proceedings
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soto v. Koehler

The petitioner, Victor Soto, a tenured Correction Officer, was terminated during a probationary period on January 19, 1989, following disciplinary charges related to an auto accident and subsequent alleged excessive lateness. Soto filed a CPLR article 78 petition to challenge his termination, claiming bad faith, arguing that many of his eight latenesses were excusable due to external factors like snowstorms and transportation issues, and emphasizing his otherwise good work record. The Supreme Court dismissed his petition, finding no evidence of bad faith. This appellate decision affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the petitioner failed to prove bad faith, and that termination for lateness is a rational basis, particularly for a probationary employee, under the limited scope of judicial review for such cases. The dissenting opinion argued that the circumstances, including excusable latenesses and strong support from supervisors, demonstrated bad faith.

Correction OfficerProbationary EmploymentEmployee TerminationExcessive LatenessBad Faith AllegationCivil Service LawArticle 78 ReviewUnemployment BenefitsJudicial Review ScopeAppellate Affirmation
References
12
Case No. Dkt. No. 63
Regular Panel Decision

Dunbar Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Landis Plastics, Inc.

Petitioner Sandra Dunbar, regional director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), sought to amend her petition and resume Section 10(j) injunction proceedings against respondent Landis Plasties, Inc. Landis opposed, arguing prior compliance with a settlement agreement, lack of NLRB authority to revoke it, undue delay, and bad faith, while also requesting discovery and evidentiary hearings. Judge Pooler found Landis' arguments lacked merit, emphasizing the liberal standard for amending pleadings and the NLRB's authority to revoke informal settlements. Consequently, the court granted the NLRB's motion to amend its petition and resume proceedings, denying Landis' requests for expedited discovery and an evidentiary hearing. The decision noted that affidavit evidence was sufficient for the Section 10(j) standard, which is highly deferential to the NLRB, and also granted the NLRB's motion for a discovery protective order.

Section 10(j) InjunctionNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesMotion to AmendDiscovery DisputeSettlement RevocationFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRegional Director AuthorityTemporary ReliefStatus Quo Ante
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2018

Matter of Center for Discovery, Inc. v. NYC Dept. of Educ.

The Center for Discovery, Inc. appealed a lower court's dismissal of its CPLR article 78 petition against the NYC Department of Education. Petitioner sought reimbursement for additional, mandated services provided to a student with autism, which NYCDE refused to cover. The Supreme Court had dismissed the case, citing a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that NYCDE's definitive refusal to pay constituted an exhaustion of administrative remedies. The matter is remanded to the Supreme Court to determine if NYCDE must reimburse The Center for Discovery for the services it explicitly required.

Education LawSpecial EducationIndividualized Education PlanAdministrative LawReimbursement DisputeCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewAutism Spectrum DisorderChildren with DisabilitiesGovernment Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scott v. Workers' Compensation Board

A probationary employee's termination by the Workers' Compensation Board was upheld on appeal. The employee initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, claiming the dismissal was arbitrary, capricious, and in bad faith, but the Supreme Court dismissed the application. The appellate court affirmed, emphasizing that probationary employees can be terminated without explanation or a hearing unless the discharge is for constitutionally impermissible reasons, legal violations, or bad faith. The petitioner failed to demonstrate bad faith or that the termination was unrelated to job performance, as evidence showed deficiencies in understanding Workers' Compensation Law, lack of improvement after training, and improper conduct.

Employment TerminationProbationary EmployeeUnsatisfactory PerformanceBad FaithCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardCivil Service LawAdministrative LawPublic Employment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doolittle v. Lettiere

Petitioner appealed the dismissal of his petition in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. This proceeding challenged the termination of his employment as a Bridge Construction and Maintenance Supervisor at the conclusion of his probationary period. While probationary employees can generally be discharged without a hearing and without a statement of reasons, courts may intervene if the discharge was made in bad faith, with the burden of proof on the employee. The appellate court concluded that the petitioner's submitted evidence, including affidavits from himself and co-workers, was sufficient to raise a question of fact regarding the respondents' bad faith. Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in summarily dismissing the petition, and the matter is remitted for a hearing on the issue of bad faith.

CPLR Article 78Probationary EmploymentEmployment TerminationBad Faith DischargeJudicial ReviewAppellate ProcedureQuestion of FactRemittalSummary DismissalAffidavits
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,851 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