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

People v. Gans

This court opinion addresses whether a certified social worker can be qualified as an expert witness to provide testimony regarding a defendant's mental capacity to proceed and future competency. The defense sought to qualify Hillel Bodek, a certified social worker specializing in forensic clinical social work, as an expert witness for these purposes. The court meticulously reviewed the qualifications of clinical social workers, acknowledging their critical role in the diagnosis of mental disorders, including their involvement in the development of the DSM III. Despite statutory provisions in CPL article 730 outlining who may serve as psychiatric examiners, the court emphasized that other appropriately trained and experienced experts can also offer testimony on competence. Ultimately, the court ruled in the affirmative, concluding that certified social workers with demonstrated training and supervised clinical experience in diagnosis and capacity assessment are qualified to provide expert testimony on these crucial issues.

Expert Witness QualificationCertified Social WorkerMental Capacity AssessmentCompetency to ProceedForensic Mental HealthDiagnostic AssessmentPrognostic StatementsCriminal Procedure Law Article 730DSM IIINon-Medical Expert Testimony
References
13
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05361
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2024

Rogers v. Peter Scalamandre & Sons, Inc.

The plaintiff, Michael Rogers, an employee of Certified Interiors, Inc., sustained personal injuries at a construction site when a boom lift he was operating suddenly malfunctioned. Rogers initiated an action against Peter Scalamandre & Sons, Inc., the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Scalamandre subsequently filed a third-party action against Certified for contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. The Supreme Court granted Rogers' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) and largely denied other motions. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by granting Certified's motion to dismiss the contractual indemnification claim, deeming it void under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 due to Scalamandre's negligence, and otherwise affirmed the lower court's rulings.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentBoom Lift MalfunctionLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)General Obligations Law § 5-322.1Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewThird-Party Action
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 1990

Narine v. Handler

Oduth Narine, an employee of Protection Systems Specialists, Inc., was injured while inspecting a ventilation system. Narine and his wife initiated a negligence action against his employer and co-employee Howard Handler, alleging failure to provide a safe workplace. The defendants sought summary judgment, claiming the suit was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, given Narine had already received benefits. The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the order was modified; summary judgment was granted to Protection Systems Specialists, Inc. due to the exclusivity of Workers' Compensation benefits. However, the denial of summary judgment for Handler was affirmed, as questions of fact remained regarding his employment relationship.

NegligencePersonal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedyCo-employee LiabilityFactual QuestionsAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilitySafe Place to Work
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Landon v. Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc.

This case addresses whether a drug testing laboratory can be held liable in tort to a non-contracting subject for negligent testing. The plaintiff, while on probation in Orange County, submitted an oral fluid sample that Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., falsely reported as positive for marijuana. The lab allegedly used a lower cutoff level than recommended and failed to perform a confirmatory GC/MS test, leading to an extension of the plaintiff's probation. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court reversed, asserting that a duty of reasonable care exists due to the severe consequences of inaccurate drug test results on individuals' lives and the lack of market incentives for testing accuracy. The court concluded that the plaintiff's complaint adequately stated a cause of action for negligence.

Drug TestingNegligenceTort LiabilityForensic ToxicologyPrivity of ContractDuty of CareProbation ViolationFalse PositiveLaboratory StandardsCPLR 3211(a)(7)
References
101
Case No. ADJ7785859
Regular
Nov 18, 2015

RAY ANTHONY vs. VALERO/CERTIFIED SAFETY SPECIALISTS, LLC, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The dismissal was based on the fact that the petition was filed **untimely**, exceeding the statutory 25-day deadline for such filings. The Board emphasized that timely filing means actual receipt by the WCAB, not just mailing. Because the petition was jurisdictional late, the Board lacked the authority to consider its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWCAB RulesAdministrative Law JudgeDismissal OrderService by MailProof of FilingAppeals Board AuthorityMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Certified Environmental Services, Inc.

Following a nine-day trial, defendants Certified Environmental Services, Inc. (CES), Nicole Copeland, Sandy Allen, and Elisa Dunn were found guilty of multiple charges including conspiracy, Clean Air Act violations, mail fraud, and false statements related to improper asbestos abatement. Co-defendant Frank Onoff pleaded guilty to conspiracy. The court held a hearing to determine restitution amounts owed to victims, as CES facilitated illegal "rip-and-run" asbestos removal by other contractors, Aapex and Paragon, through improper air monitoring. The court determined a total loss of $117,101.96, which was then apportioned among the defendants based on their contribution and economic circumstances, leading to specific restitution orders for each convicted party.

Asbestos AbatementClean Air Act ViolationsToxic Substances Control ActMail FraudConspiracyFalse StatementsRestitution OrderEnvironmental CrimesCorporate LiabilitySupervisory Role
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Green Hills (USA), L.L.C. v. Aaron Streit, Inc.

Green Hills, LLC brought an action against Aaron Streit, Inc. and Certified Environments, Inc. for violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and New York Navigation Law, along with other common law provisions. The dispute arose after Green Hills purchased a property from Streit's, which was previously inspected by CEI, and subsequently discovered leaked heating oil from underground storage tanks. Green Hills alleges that Streit's misrepresented the property's environmental condition and CEI failed to detect the hazards. Defendants moved to dismiss various counts of the complaint, with Streit's arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under RCRA, and CEI arguing the economic loss rule bars certain state-law claims. The court denied both defendants' motions to dismiss, finding sufficient allegations for an RCRA claim and exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against CEI. The court also granted Green Hills' cross-motion to amend its complaint.

RCRAEnvironmental LawHazardous WasteUnderground Storage TanksContaminationNew York Navigation LawMotions to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionFailure to State a ClaimSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
29
Case No. ADJ7422993
Regular
Apr 06, 2015

SHIRLEY LESCALLETT vs. WAL-MART, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, YORK RISK SERVICES

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant sought to select a pain management specialist as her primary treating physician. The employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN) did not have any pain management specialists within the 15-mile/30-minute access standard for primary physicians, though it did have specialists within a 30-mile/60-minute radius. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that if an applicant chooses a specialist for their primary care, the MPN must provide at least three physicians of that specialty within a 15-mile/30-minute radius. Since the defendant's MPN failed to meet this standard for pain management specialists, the applicant was permitted to choose one outside the MPN. A dissenting opinion argued that the 30-mile/60-minute standard for specialists should apply, allowing the applicant to select a physician within that broader radius from the MPN.

MPNMedical Provider NetworkPrimary Treating PhysicianSpecialistAccess StandardsAdministrative Director's RulePain Management PhysicianGeographic RadiusLabor CodeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 1990

In re New York Archaeological Council v. Town Board of Coxsackie

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed petitioners' application, in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, to review a determination by the Town Board of Coxsackie. Petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 6 and a negative declaration, which rezoned a 155-acre parcel from residential/agricultural to industrial for a warehouse facility by J-Mark Company, Inc. and Distribution Specialist, Inc. The Town Board, as lead agency under SEQRA, failed to require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) despite identifying potentially significant environmental impacts on a recognized archaeological district. The appellate court found the Town Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously by not taking the "hard look" required by SEQRA and by having insufficient time for independent investigation. Consequently, the judgment was modified, the petition granted to the extent of annulling Local Law No. 6 and the negative declaration.

Environmental LawSEQRAZoningLand UseEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS)Negative DeclarationArchaeological SiteType I ActionArbitrary and CapriciousCPLR Article 78
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Certified Multi-media Solutions, Ltd. v. Preferred Contractors Insurance Co. Risk Retention Group, LLC

This case involves a dispute over insurance coverage between Certified MultiMedia Solutions, LTD (Plaintiff) and Preferred Contractors Insurance Company Risk Retention Group, LLC (Defendant) regarding a commercial general liability policy. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the Defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify it in a third-party action related to a worker's injury by Anthony Balzano. The core dispute centered on the interpretation of Endorsement 23 of the policy, which the Defendant argued limited coverage to $10,000 for bodily injury claims. The Court, however, adopted the Plaintiff's interpretation, finding that the $10,000 limit only applied if the employee sustained a 'grave injury' under New York State Workers’ Compensation Law, which was not the case here. Consequently, the Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied, and the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted, entitling the Plaintiff to coverage up to the $1,000,000 policy limit.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentCommercial General Liability PolicyContractual IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawGrave Injury DefinitionPolicy InterpretationSummary JudgmentFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureThird-Party Action
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 411 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