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. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. 09-06-569 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2007

Facility Insurance Corp., a Successor in Interest to the Texas Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Pool v. Anthony Zenon and Neurobehavioral Resources, Ltd.

This Memorandum Opinion from the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont addresses an appeal involving Facility Insurance Corp., as Successor in Interest to the Texas Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Pool (Appellant), and Anthony Zenon and Neurobehavioral Resources, Ltd. (Appellees). The parties jointly requested the Court to vacate the judgment rendered by the trial court and remand the cause for the entry of a new judgment, in accordance with their reached agreement. The Court, finding the motion compliant with Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2), granted the request. As a result, the judgment of the trial court was vacated without delving into the merits of the case, and the matter was sent back to the 60th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas, for further proceedings in line with the parties' settlement agreement. All costs incurred were assessed against the respective parties.

TexasCourt of AppealsVacatedRemandedSettlement AgreementWorkers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureMemorandum OpinionTrial Court JudgmentJoint Motion
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Street Beat Sportswear, Inc. v. National Mobilization Against Sweatshops

This case involves Street Beat, a women’s clothing manufacturer, suing garment factory workers, nonprofit organizations, and their officials for tortious interference with business relationships. Street Beat alleged that defendants falsely claimed the company profited from sweatshop labor, causing retailers Sears and Charming Shoppes to stop buying its goods. Defendants argued the lawsuit constituted a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), intended to retaliate against their efforts to report labor law violations to state and federal agencies. The court determined the suit was a SLAPP suit, materially related to the workers' actions before public agencies. The complaint against the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, and the claims against the remaining defendants were dismissed due to lack of proof for tortious interference and absence of solely malicious intent. Ultimately, the defendants' motions for dismissal were granted, and Street Beat's cross-motion for partial summary judgment was denied.

SLAPP SuitTortious InterferenceBusiness RelationshipsGarment IndustryLabor Law ViolationsAnti-SLAPP StatuteAgency TheorySummary JudgmentDismissal of ComplaintAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chen v. Street Beat Sportswear, Inc.

Plaintiffs filed an action alleging federal and state minimum wage and overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. The action was brought against two garment factories, 1A Fashions Inc. and Red Arrow Inc., their owners, and a sportswear manufacturer, Street Beat Sportswear, Inc., along with its officers, Albert Papouchado and Michel Amar. The manufacturer defendants moved to dismiss claims of negligence and a third-party beneficiary claim for breach of contract. The court considered arguments regarding the Workers' Compensation Law and the plaintiffs' standing as third-party beneficiaries to an agreement between the Department of Labor and Street Beat. For the reasons stated, the defendants' partial motion to dismiss was denied in all respects.

FLSANew York Labor LawMinimum WageOvertime PayJoint EmployerNegligence ClaimsThird-Party BeneficiaryBreach of ContractMotion to DismissWorkers' Compensation Law
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Herring

County Court granted Joseph F. Cawley enhanced assigned counsel fees under "extraordinary circumstances" according to County Law § 722-b, exceeding statutory limits. The County of Broome appealed, arguing a question of statutory construction regarding whether "foregoing limits" in § 722-b applied to hourly rates or only total amounts. The appellate court found this argument unpersuasive, viewing it as an attempt to appeal a discretionary award. Citing precedent, including Matter of Werfel v Agresta and Matter of Director of Assigned Counsel Plan of City of N. Y. (Bodek), the court affirmed that trial court orders on enhanced fees are administrative and not subject to appellate judicial review on the merits. Consequently, the appeal brought by the County of Broome was dismissed with costs.

Assigned Counsel FeesExtraordinary CircumstancesStatutory InterpretationAppellate JurisdictionJudicial DiscretionCounty Law 722-bAdministrative ReviewJusticiable ControversyHourly RatesFee Schedules
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fay v. Assignment America

Plaintiff Jean Fay, a respiratory technician, sued defendants Ann Ayars, Assignment America, Daniel McDonough, and Cross-Country Health Care Personnel, Inc., for negligence. Fay alleged that she suffered physical and mental injuries after being attacked by a patient, Bart McCagg, while administering oxygen. She claimed that Ayars, a nurse, failed to take adequate steps to control McCagg despite Fay's warnings. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. This appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that no cognizable duty existed between any defendant and the plaintiff to prevent the third-party patient from causing harm, as there was no special relationship or control over McCagg's actions. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed.

NegligenceDuty of CareSummary JudgmentThird-Party LiabilitySpecial RelationshipHospital SettingRespiratory TechnicianNursePatient AttackVicarious Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Murray v. St. Joseph's Hospital

The State Insurance Fund appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed March 10, 1995. The Board had denied the Fund’s application to transfer a claimant’s workers’ compensation case to the original Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) after a final determination awarding benefits had already been made. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 20, which states that a continued hearing before the same referee is only required until a final determination is reached. Since a final award had been made, the court found no requirement to assign the matter to the original WCLJ, deferring to the Board's interpretation of the statute.

Workers' CompensationAppealWCLJ AssignmentStatutory InterpretationFinal DeterminationAdministrative LawInsurance CarrierJurisdictionBoard Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v. GEICO Insurance

This case involves an action brought by a medical provider against an insurer to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The insurer partially paid the claim but denied the remaining portion, arguing that charges for acupuncture treatments exceeded the maximum fees allowed under the applicable fee schedule. Following a nonjury trial, the Civil Court ruled in favor of the defendant, dismissing the complaint. The court held that an insurer may utilize the workers’ compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services rendered by chiropractors, even when the services are performed by a licensed acupuncturist. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that since the defendant reimbursed the plaintiff according to the workers’ compensation fee schedule for chiropractor-provided acupuncture services, no additional reimbursement was due.

Acupuncture ServicesChiropracticNo-Fault InsuranceFee ScheduleWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleLicensure RequirementsFirst-Party BenefitsAppellate ReviewInsurance ReimbursementCivil Court Decision
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 931 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