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. 2004 NY Slip Op 24299 [4 Misc 3d 974]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2004

Themed Rests., Inc. v. Zagat Survey, LLC

Themed Restaurants, Inc., operating as Lucky Cheng's, sued Zagat Survey, LLC for libel, trade libel, and negligence, challenging a negative review in the 2004 NYC Restaurant Survey. The plaintiff alleged a 35% business drop post-publication, attributing it to the survey's low food rating and critical anonymous consumer comments about the restaurant's theme and offerings. The court considered whether survey-based reviews, utilizing anonymous opinions and numerical ratings, constituted protected opinion or actionable defamation. Ultimately, the court ruled that the review's statements and ratings were subjective opinions, not false statements of fact, and therefore protected by free speech principles. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to meet the pleading specificity requirement for constitutional malice. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was granted.

DefamationLibelTrade LibelRestaurant ReviewFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechConstitutional MaliceActual MalicePleading SpecificityConsumer Surveys
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Themed Restaurants, Inc. v. Zagat Survey, LLC

Lucky Cheng’s, a New York City restaurant, sued Zagat Survey, LLC for libel, trade libel, and negligence after receiving a negative review in the 2004 NYC Restaurant Survey. The restaurant claimed a significant business decline and challenged the review, which was based on anonymous consumer comments and numerical ratings. Justice Diane A. Lebedeff considered whether such a survey-based review constituted actionable defamation under First Amendment protections. The court determined that the review's statements and ratings were subjective opinions, not false factual assertions, and thus constitutionally protected. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to meet the required standard of pleading constitutional malice, leading the court to grant the motion to dismiss the complaint.

DefamationLibelTrade LibelRestaurant ReviewFirst AmendmentFree SpeechPublic FigureActual MaliceConstitutional MaliceMotion to Dismiss
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bourret v. Regan

A senior transportation survey supervisor, referred to as the petitioner, was injured while voluntarily assisting a co-worker in loading traffic survey material onto a truck. The petitioner injured an arm when a sign frame slipped, rendering him unable to work. Although his application for ordinary disability retirement was granted, his application for accidental disability retirement benefits was denied by the State Comptroller. The Comptroller determined that the injury was not an "accident" within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, concluding that loading vehicles was part of the petitioner's overall duties and that an item slipping during loading is an inherent risk. The court confirmed the Comptroller's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence, and dismissed the petition.

Accidental DisabilityRetirement BenefitsState ComptrollerInjury at WorkLoading AccidentSubstantial EvidenceArticle 78 ProceedingState Department of TransportationInherent RiskDisability Retirement
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 1989

Stanton Corp. v. Department of Labor of the State

The Supreme Court of New York County affirmed an order compelling the Department of Labor (DOL) to process requests for targeted jobs tax credits from employers utilizing "The Stanton Survey." The petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding after DOL denied services, initially due to concerns about drug and alcohol questions violating Human Rights Law. Even after the Survey was amended to remove these, DOL continued denials, citing potential violations of the Ex-Offender Law regarding theft questions. The IAS court had partially granted the petition, and the Supreme Court agreed that DOL acted beyond its authority by denying services without a final determination from the New York State Division of Human Rights.

Targeted Jobs Tax CreditCPLR Article 78MandamusEmployment ScreeningStanton SurveyHuman Rights LawEx-Offender LawAdministrative AuthorityZone of InterestDenial of Services
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2013

Matter of Baczuk v. Good Samaritan Hospital

Claimant, a critical care nurse, developed reactive airway dysfunction syndrome and an allergy to hand sanitizer at her workplace, leading to her stopping work and applying for workers' compensation. Her case was established for a work-related injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found a permanent marked partial disability with a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity, awarding benefits at $600 per week. The Workers’ Compensation Board agreed on the 90% loss but capped benefits at 500 weeks. The employer appealed, arguing the calculation should consider vocational factors and an employment consultant's labor market survey indicating only a 25% loss. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that wage-earning capacity for partial disability is determined by actual earnings, and found substantial evidence supported the 90% loss, discrediting the employer's survey due to the claimant's severe coughing impediment.

Workers' CompensationWage-Earning CapacityPermanent Partial DisabilityAllergic ReactionReactive Airway Dysfunction SyndromeHand SanitizerActual EarningsLabor Market SurveyAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
7
Case No. ADJ196150 (LAO 0803808)
Regular
Jul 13, 2009

MARICELA ARELLANO vs. TELACU, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration for lien claimant Tarzana Surgery Center regarding the reasonableness of their billed outpatient surgery fees. While the WCJ found the reasonable fee to be $20,181.00, the lien claimant argued the WCJ erred in using a CHSWC study and in reducing the lien without the defendant meeting its burden of proof. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision on the fee amount but amended the findings to clarify the admissibility of certain lien claimant exhibits and the inadmissibility of others due to lack of foundation or relevance.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeReasonable outpatient surgery feeCompromise and ReleaseCommission on Health and Safety and Workers' CompensationTapia v. Skill Master StaffingKunz v. Patterson Floor CoveringsInc.
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 1990

Prouty v. Monroe Contractors Equipment, Inc.

The employer appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from June 18, 1990, which found the claimant totally industrially disabled and awarded benefits. The employer contended that despite a permanent partial disability, the claimant could return to gainful employment. However, the court disagreed, affirming the Board's finding. The Board based its conclusion on the claimant's limited education, exclusive history of manual labor, and the fact that surveyed occupations required higher education or training, rendering him "virtually unemployable." The court upheld the Board's discretion in resolving credibility issues and selectively adopting medical expert testimony.

industrial disabilityworkers' compensationmanual laboreducation limitationsemployabilitycredibilitymedical expert testimonyappellate reviewaffirming decisionWorkers' Compensation Board
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1998

In re Mamash Restaurant Corp.

Mamash Restaurant Corporation appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that assessed additional unemployment insurance contributions and a fraud penalty for the audit period of January 1993 through December 1995. The Board's assessment was based on findings that Mamash underreported its employees and failed to produce accurate records. Mamash contended that the Board improperly estimated the number of employees due to physical capacity limitations of its premises. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board was justified in its estimated assessment given Mamash's failure to produce records and evidence from a tax auditor's survey. The fraud penalty was also upheld as warranted under the circumstances.

Unemployment InsuranceUnderreporting EmployeesFraud PenaltyEstimated AssessmentEmployee RecordsAudit PeriodAdministrative AppealAppellate DivisionNew York Labor LawEmployer Liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lantry v. State

The petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the Commissioner of Labor. This determination found the petitioner failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements on a public works project for the Ichabod Crane Central School District. The Department of Labor reclassified work performed as glazier tasks to that of ironworkers, masons, laborers, or carpenters, alleging willful underpayment. The petitioner contested the Department's use of a 'nature of the work' test and its reliance on collective bargaining agreements for trade classification, arguing for survey-based evidence. However, the court confirmed the Department's expertise and methods, dismissing the petition and upholding the finding of willful underpayment.

Prevailing wageLabor lawTrade classificationWillful underpaymentCollective bargaining agreementsIronworkersGlaziersStatutory interpretationJudicial reviewCPLR Article 78
References
20
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06107 [243 AD3d 986]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2025

Matter of Dunkez Private Home Care, Inc. v. McDonald

The case involves Dunkez Private Home Care, Inc., a licensed home care services agency, challenging the Commissioner of Health's determination to revoke its license and impose a monetary penalty. The revocation stemmed from multiple deficiencies found during DOH surveys in 2019 and 2021, a substantiated patient complaint, and the agency's failure to comply with a temporary suspension order. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The Court also found the penalty, license revocation and a monetary fine, was not disproportionate or shocking to one's sense of fairness, considering the serious danger posed to vulnerable patients.

Home Care Services AgencyLicense RevocationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDepartment of HealthCPLR Article 78Monetary PenaltyTemporary Suspension OrderPatient Care Deficiencies
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 19 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