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

Brian v. Johns

Petitioner Carol Brian initiated an action against respondent Frank T. Johns to establish paternity for her child, Sara, born March 4, 1973, and to secure child support. A court-ordered blood grouping test, conducted at the respondent's expense following an order on January 2, 1974, excluded Mr. Johns as the father. Unsatisfied with these results, the petitioner requested a second blood test, but the court denied this motion after reconsideration, citing respondent's opposition and the lack of statutory authority in Section 532 of the Family Court Act for ordering a second test over objection. The court ruled that the trial should proceed, requiring the respondent to present the performing doctor as a witness to explain the test's basis and procedure, allowing the petitioner to question its accuracy. The decision acknowledged a potential margin of error in such tests and affirmed the petitioner's opportunity to rebut the blood test evidence, as it is not the sole determinant of paternity.

paternityblood testFamily Court Actevidencetrialmotion deniedchild supportmedical examination accuracyserologyhemotology
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 1980

France v. St. Clare's Hospital & Health Center

The plaintiff, Joe France, sued St. Clare's Hospital for libel, alleging that a letter sent by the hospital to a co-worker falsely stated he had a venereal disease, which led to emotional stress, disruption of his relationship, and sexual impotence. The hospital had conducted routine blood tests after France donated blood, and his sample reacted positively to a VDRL test, leading to the letter informing his co-worker that his blood could not be used. Subsequent tests showed France did not have a venereal disease. The court, applying First Amendment principles from Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., found that without proof of malice or actual injury to reputation, claims for presumed damages or emotional distress alone are not compensable in New York. Since malice was conceded to be absent and no actual reputational harm was proven, the court reversed the lower court's denial and granted St. Clare's Hospital's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

LibelDefamationVenereal DiseaseVDRL TestSummary JudgmentActual InjuryPresumed DamagesFirst AmendmentReputationEmotional Distress
References
14
Case No. G107 435
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2023

Matter of Marku v. ABM Industries

This case concerns the claim of Denise Perry under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) previously found that the employer, Adventist Home Care, established a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by the claimant for willfully making false statements to obtain benefits. Consequently, the WCLJ disallowed indemnity benefits and imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties. A Board Panel decision filed on February 17, 2022, affirmed the WCLJ's findings. The claimant subsequently filed an application for reconsideration on March 18, 2022, which the Board Panel reviewed. After considering the claimant’s arguments, the Board Panel determined that the application did not raise new issues or present new material evidence, nor did it demonstrate an erroneous statement of material fact or law in the prior decision. Therefore, the Board Panel, by a majority vote, affirmed its prior decision.

Workers' Compensation FraudFalse RepresentationIndemnity Benefits DisallowanceWCL § 114-a PenaltyApplication for Reconsideration DeniedBoard Panel AffirmationWillful MisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation Law Judge DecisionEmployer Established Violation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fafinski v. Reliance Insurance

In a jury trial, a plaintiff sued an insurance company for disclaiming no-fault coverage, asserting the plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of the automobile accident. The trial court excluded evidence of a non-consensual blood-alcohol test, which showed plaintiff was intoxicated, based on lack of consent and non-compliance with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194. The defendant insurance company appealed. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that blood-alcohol test results, if properly founded, are admissible in civil cases to prove intoxication for no-fault policy exclusions, regardless of express consent or compliance with criminal procedural requirements. The case was remanded for a new trial.

IntoxicationNo-fault coverageBlood-alcohol test admissibilityPolicy exclusionAutomobile accidentCivil evidenceVehicle and Traffic LawInsurance LawConsent requirementsHospital records
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Burns v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits due to injuries from an automobile accident. As an employee of the Workers’ Compensation Board, his claim was processed through a neutral outside arbitration process. An arbitrator established his claim and average weekly wage. Claimant appealed, arguing his average weekly wage should have been calculated differently due to a recent promotion, as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (2). An arbitration panel declined to address this argument because it was not raised before the arbitrator. The appellate court affirmed the panel's decision, citing that the panel could decline review of issues not previously raised, consistent with 12 NYCRR 300.13 [e] [1] [iii].

ArbitrationAverage Weekly WageWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewIssue PreservationAdministrative LawProcedural Due ProcessStatutory InterpretationWorkers’ Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mulligan v. Workers' Compensation Board

The claimant, a former workers' compensation law judge, appealed the denial of reduced earning benefits, which stemmed from his claim that stress from his job caused him to voluntarily withdraw from the labor market. He had previously received benefits for a 1995 angina attack. An arbitrator and subsequent arbitration panel concluded that he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market, a determination the claimant contested, asserting his retirement was due to work-related stress. The court, led by Judge Carpinello, found substantial evidence supported the panel's decision, noting the claimant never complained of stress to supervisors, sought accommodations, or applied for disability retirement. The court affirmed the arbitration panel's decision, denying the claimant's appeal.

Voluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketReduced Earning BenefitsWorkers Compensation BenefitsArbitration Panel DecisionSubstantial EvidenceDisability RetirementJob-Related StressAppellate ReviewLabor Market WithdrawalClaim Denial
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1994

St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services v. Terry E.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County, which adjudicated the respondent as the father of a child born to Julie D. An earlier paternity proceeding had excluded Richard M. as the father. The mother, Julie D., testified to having unprotected sexual relations with the respondent during the critical period of conception. Blood tests, including HLA and DNA analyses, indicated a high probability of the respondent's paternity. The respondent presented testimony from several witnesses attempting to cast doubt on the mother's claims and her credibility regarding other potential fathers. However, the Family Court found the mother's testimony credible and struck the testimony of the respondent's brother due to a lack of corroboration. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's determination, concluding that the evidence, particularly the mother's credible testimony and the highly probative blood test results, amply supported the paternity finding. The court also found no merit to the respondent's contention of ineffective assistance of counsel.

PaternityChild AdjudicationBlood Genetic Marker TestHLA TestDNA AnalysisCredibility AssessmentWitness TestimonyFamily LawAppellate ReviewSexual History
References
8
Case No. WCB No. G076 2707
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2021

Matter of Duncan v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

This Board Panel Decision concerns an appeal by the applicant, Joseph Lafayette, regarding a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's (WCLJ) finding on the causal relationship of his back injury. The applicant sustained injuries to his back, neck, and shoulder during his employment. The WCLJ had previously established a causal relationship for the neck and shoulder injuries but disallowed the claim for the back injury. Upon review, the Board Panel determined that the medical evidence in the record supports a causal relationship between the claimant's employment and his lower back injury. As a result, the Panel modified the WCLJ's decision to establish a causal relationship for the back injury, while affirming the other aspects of the original decision.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryNeck InjuryShoulder InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidencePanel ReviewWCLJ DecisionModificationAppeal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leone v. Columbia Sussex Corp.

Alfred Leone sustained injuries when a scaffold plank broke at a construction site owned and operated by Columbia Sussex Corp. He was an employee of Smith Glass Co., a subcontractor, and the scaffold was erected by another subcontractor, Panelized Systems, Ltd. Columbia Sussex Corp. appealed orders denying its motion to amend its answer with a Workers’ Compensation Law defense and denying summary judgment on its third-party complaint against Panelized. The appellate court reversed the denial to amend, finding a question of fact on whether Leone was a special employee of Columbia, thus allowing the Workers' Compensation defense to be asserted. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for indemnification against Panelized, ruling contractual indemnification inapplicable and common-law indemnification premature.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentWorkers' Compensation LawSpecial EmploymentAmended AnswerSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityConstruction Accident
References
9
Case No. G0699450
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2023

Matter of Von Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center

The claimant, Yvette Robles, sustained a work-related injury to her left knee. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially established accident, notice, and causal relationship. However, the employer and carrier appealed, contending the claim was untimely filed. A Board Panel modified the WCLJ's decision, determining that the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 28 due to untimely filing. The Full Board subsequently affirmed the Board Panel's decision, upholding the bar to the claim.

Timeliness of ClaimWCL § 28Board Panel ReviewAccident, Notice, and Causal RelationshipLeft Knee InjuryEmployer AppealFull Board ReviewClaim BarredStatute of LimitationsWork-Related Injury
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,259 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