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

Hason v. Department of Health

The petitioner, a physician, sought review of a determination by the Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct (ARB) which suspended his medical license. The ARB's decision was based on a prior California Board finding that the petitioner's ability to practice medicine was impaired by mental illness (bipolar affective disorder and narcissistic personality disorder). The court upheld the ARB's finding of professional misconduct, applying collateral estoppel to the California determination. However, the court found the penalty imposed by the ARB—a one-year suspension "and thereafter until such time as [petitioner] can demonstrate his fitness to practice medicine"—was not authorized by Public Health Law § 230-a. Consequently, the court modified the determination by annulling the penalty and remitted the matter to the ARB for the imposition of a statutorily appropriate penalty.

Medical License SuspensionProfessional MisconductPsychiatric ImpairmentMental IllnessBipolar Affective DisorderNarcissistic Personality DisorderCollateral EstoppelArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative ReviewPenalty Annulment
References
26
Case No. ADJ8180232
Regular
Sep 13, 2017

HUBERT OLIVER vs. PHILADELPHIA EAGLES, ACE/ESIS, INDIANAPOLIS COLTS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, HOUSTON OILERS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for HOME INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review a judge's finding of no California jurisdiction over a professional football player's injury claim. The Board will consider whether the applicant was hired in California and if playing two games here creates sufficient connection for jurisdiction under the *Johnson* decision. The applicant will be allowed to file a supplemental brief referencing trial transcripts, and all parties will have an opportunity to brief the Board's intention to rule on the sufficiency of California's interest in adjudicating the claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia jurisdictionindustrial injuryprofessional football playeremployment contractssubject matter jurisdictionsupplemental briefingcumulative traumaFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)due process
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07712
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2020

Matter of Schlossberg

Aaron M. Schlossberg, an attorney, was publicly censured by the Appellate Division, First Department, for professional misconduct. The charges stemmed from a May 2018 incident in a Manhattan delicatessen where Schlossberg verbally confronted staff and a patron for speaking Spanish, making offensive remarks and threatening to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He admitted to violating Rules of Professional Conduct rule 8.4 (h) by engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer. The parties jointly moved for discipline by consent, agreeing to a public censure, which the court imposed. The court also granted Schlossberg's cross-motion to seal audio-visual recordings of the incident due to documented threats against him.

Attorney MisconductPublic CensureVerbal TiradeImmigration ThreatsProfessional EthicsRules of Professional ConductDiscipline by ConsentAppellate DivisionFirst DepartmentSealing Order
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04174
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2025

Matter of Black

Attorney Bernard S. Black was disbarred for professional misconduct. Serving as conservator for his sister, who suffers from chronic schizophrenia, Black attempted to divert approximately $1 million from their mother's estate to himself and his children by deliberately withholding information from the Colorado Probate Court. The Colorado courts found he breached his fiduciary duties, engaged in deceptive conduct, and committed civil theft, imposing substantial surcharges and treble damages. The Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed the Special Referee's findings that Black violated professional conduct rules, including dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, making false statements to a tribunal, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Despite his claims of good faith and character evidence, the court found disbarment necessary due to the severe nature of his actions against a vulnerable family member.

Attorney MisconductDisciplinary ProceedingsDisbarmentFiduciary Duty BreachConflict of InterestFraud and DeceitFalse Statements to TribunalConservatorshipEstate DiversionCivil Theft
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Addei v. State Board for Professional Medical Conduct

A surgeon's medical license was revoked by the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct due to findings of moral unfitness from sexual harassment of co-workers and fraudulent practice on employment applications. The petitioner challenged this determination via a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court upheld the Committee's jurisdiction and the findings of moral unfitness and fraud, dismissing claims of statutory vagueness. However, the court deemed the penalty of license revocation excessively harsh and "shocking to one’s sense of fairness" given mitigating factors, equivocal findings on the fraud charge, and no impact on patient care. Consequently, the court indicated that the severe penalty should not stand.

Professional MisconductLicense RevocationMoral UnfitnessFraudulent PracticeSexual HarassmentEmployment ApplicationsDue ProcessVague StatuteDisproportionate PenaltyCPLR Article 78
References
10
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01193 [214 AD3d 735]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2023

Matter of Long Beach Professional Firefighters Assn. v. City of Long Beach

This case concerns a dispute between the Long Beach Professional Firefighters Association (union) and the City of Long Beach regarding the terms of employment for paramedics. The City had unilaterally set these terms, leading the union to file a grievance and subsequently seek arbitration. The arbitrator found that the City violated the collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award, which the City appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the City failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to vacate the arbitration award on grounds of irrationality, manifest disregard of law, arbitrator misconduct, or violation of public policy.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration AwardCPLR Article 75 ProceedingJudicial Review of ArbitrationPublic Policy ExceptionManifest Disregard of LawAppellate ReviewMunicipal EmploymentParamedicsGrievance
References
20
Case No. ADJ7598160
Regular
Nov 19, 2014

MAURICE JOHNSON vs. PHILADELPHIA EAGLES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, FAIRMONT PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a lower decision, finding California lacked jurisdiction over a professional football player's cumulative trauma claim against the Philadelphia Eagles. The Board held that playing only two games in California did not create a sufficient connection to the injury to warrant applying California law, citing *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)*. The applicant's limited physical presence and routine pre/post-game treatment in California were deemed de minimis. Therefore, the applicant took nothing on his California WCAB claim.

CIGAPhiladelphia EaglesReliance Insurance Companycumulative traumaprofessional football playerjurisdictionFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)administrative law judgepermanent disabilityapportionment
References
16
Case No. ADJ10779733
Regular
Feb 26, 2020

THOMAS WILSON vs. FLORIDA MARLINS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a professional athlete's workers' compensation claim where the central issue is whether California jurisdiction is precluded by Labor Code sections 3600.5(c) and (d) concerning out-of-state athletes. The Board found these exemptions inapplicable because the applicant had multiple California contracts of hire during his cumulative trauma injury period, aligning with California's general jurisdictional rules. The Board interpreted the intent of the statutory amendments to be the limitation of claims by out-of-state athletes with minimal California contacts, not those with established hire in the state. Therefore, the applicant's claim may proceed in California.

Labor Code Section 3600.5Professional Athlete ExceptionCumulative TraumaContract of HireJurisdictionOut-of-State EmployersCalifornia-Based TeamDuty DaysTemporary WorkLegislative Intent
References
13
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01700 [159 AD3d 1218]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2018

Matter of Foo

Stanley Chang Woon Foo, an attorney admitted in 2010, faced disciplinary action in New York stemming from professional misconduct in British Columbia. He was previously suspended and fined in British Columbia for making inappropriate and threatening remarks to a social worker. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department moved to impose reciprocal discipline in New York. The court found that Foo's conduct violated New York's Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly concerning prejudice to the administration of justice and reflecting adversely on his fitness as a lawyer. As a result, the court granted the motion and ordered that Foo be censured.

Attorney MisconductProfessional DisciplineCensureCross-Jurisdictional DisciplineRules of Professional ConductAppellate Division Third DepartmentThreatening StatementsProfessional EthicsReciprocal DisciplineSocial Worker Interaction
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01338
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Matter of Pierre

This case involves W. Marilynn Pierre, a suspended attorney, and the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Pierre was previously suspended in 2017 due to admissions of professional misconduct, including commingling client funds, using her escrow account as an operating account, and evading tax liens. She also converted/misappropriated guardianship funds and failed to satisfy a judgment. Now, the parties have filed a joint motion for discipline by consent, stipulating to facts that confirm violations of rules 1.15 (a), (b), (e), and 8.4 (c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Mitigating factors include her cooperation, current work as a social worker, restitution efforts, and mental health issues (bulimia, depression, ADD) affecting her practice, for which she is undergoing monitoring. The Court grants the joint motion and imposes a five-year suspension, retroactive to August 8, 2017.

Attorney misconductprofessional ethicsattorney disciplineescrow account misusecommingling fundsmisappropriationtax liensmental healthmitigating factorssuspension
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 10,066 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