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. 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
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2012

Gullo v. Bellhaven Center for Geriatric & Rehabilitative Care, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding an employee, Lenny Gullo, who sued his employer, Bellhaven Center, for damages stemming from a delayed diagnosis of Hepatitis C. Gullo underwent a routine blood test in 2005 which tested positive for the Hepatitis C antibody, but he was only informed of this condition in 2009. Along with his wife and daughter, Gullo commenced an action alleging damages due to the delayed diagnosis caused by the employer's failure to disclose test results. The Supreme Court initially granted Bellhaven's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Workers' Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing that the Workers’ Compensation Board holds primary jurisdiction over issues of compensation coverage. The matter was remitted back to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a new determination following a resolution by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding the parties' rights.

Primary JurisdictionHepatitis CDelayed DiagnosisPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRemittalEmployer LiabilityMedical Test ResultsSuffolk County Supreme Court
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. New York City Transit Authority

The petitioner, a 15-year employee of the New York City Transit Authority named Johnson, was demoted from structure supervisor and foreman to structure maintainer after a disciplinary hearing. This demotion followed a blood alcohol test, which showed .7 milligrams of alcohol per cubic centimeter in his blood, taken after he was involved as a passenger in a minor traffic accident. The Transit Authority's determination was based on an internal, uncodified policy stating that a .5 blood alcohol reading automatically proved intoxication, despite no evidence of Johnson's actual intoxication or poor performance. Johnson testified the alcohol was from prescription cough medicine and two scotches consumed over 21 hours prior. The court, reviewing the determination under CPLR article 78, annulled the demotion, ruling that the finding of unfitness was not supported by substantial evidence, especially considering New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1195 (2)(b) deems a .7 reading prima facie evidence of *not* being intoxicated. The court ordered Johnson restored to his supervisory position with full back pay.

Disciplinary ActionDemotionBlood Alcohol TestUnfitness for DutyCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewIntoxication PolicyBack PayJudicial AnnulmentPrescription Medication
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2010

Commissioner of Social Services v. Dimarcus C.

The Family Court in New York County denied the appellant's motion for genetic testing and affirmed an order of filiation declaring the appellant to be the father of the subject child. The court found it was in the child's best interest to estop the respondent from denying paternity, as the respondent had consistently presented himself as the father to family, friends, and the child, providing support and care. Additionally, the 12-year-old child believed the respondent was his father. The court was not required to identify the biological father, having already dismissed a petition against another individual who was excluded by DNA testing, and a father-son relationship existed between the child and the respondent.

Paternity DisputeFiliation OrderEquitable EstoppelChild WelfareParental RightsGenetic Testing DenialAppellate ReviewFamily Court DecisionBest Interest of ChildImplied Paternity
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2006

Perez v. Munoz

The father appealed a Family Court order from Kings County, dated August 21, 2006, which denied his petition to modify a prior visitation order and for paternity testing. Specifically, he sought to have a social worker transport his children to his place of incarceration for visitation. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, stating that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel relief against an un-summoned social worker or agency. Additionally, the denial of paternity testing was upheld, as the proper procedure for challenging or establishing paternity, without a support order being sought, is through a separate Family Court Act article 5 proceeding.

CustodyVisitationPaternity TestingIncarcerationFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewJurisdictionFamily LawParental RightsJudicial Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 533 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