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
Jul 10, 2013

Christopher C. v. Bonnie C.

This divorce action between Christopher C. and Bonnie C. addresses equitable distribution, spousal maintenance, and counsel fees. The defendant, Bonnie C., who has a court-appointed guardian due to mental and emotional difficulties, had separated from the plaintiff in 2003 and informally divided marital assets. The court ratified this prior asset division, noting the defendant had dissipated her share. Finding the defendant unable to work and self-support, and the plaintiff capable of employment despite his claims of disability, the court awarded the defendant non-durational permanent maintenance of $2,500 per month and substantial attorney's fees. The plaintiff's motion to suspend or refund temporary maintenance was denied.

DivorceSpousal MaintenanceEquitable DistributionGuardianshipMental Health IssuesAsset DissipationAttorney's FeesFinancial CapacityPermanent MaintenanceMarital Property
References
12
Case No. 2014-2010 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2017

Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v. 21st Century Ins. Co.

The case *Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co.*, decided on September 22, 2017, by the Appellate Term, Second Department, involved an appeal concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff-appellant, Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C., challenged an order from the Civil Court that denied its motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant-respondent's cross-motion for summary judgment and to compel disclosure. The Appellate Term affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment regarding claim denials. The court also affirmed that insurers may use the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services by chiropractors to determine payments for licensed acupuncturists and upheld the defendant's right to discovery due to the plaintiff's untimely objections.

no-fault insurancesummary judgmentacupuncture servicesCPT codesworkers' compensation fee schedulediscovery disputeappellate reviewmedical billinginsurance claimstimely denial
References
7
Case No. 2014-1947 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2017

Acupuncture Now, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by Acupuncture Now, P.C., as assignee, against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. from an order of the Civil Court. The order granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment to dismiss certain causes of action and to compel plaintiff's deposition. Acupuncture Now, P.C. contested State Farm's fee reductions for acupuncture services, which were based on the workers' compensation fee schedule for chiropractors. The Appellate Term affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding that insurers may use this fee schedule for licensed acupuncturists. Furthermore, the court found the order compelling plaintiff's deposition proper, as State Farm was defending the remaining cause of action on grounds of lack of medical necessity.

No-fault benefitsAcupuncture servicesFee scheduleWorkers' compensationSummary judgmentDepositionMedical necessityInsurance disputeAppellate TermChiropractic services
References
2
Case No. 2016-2075 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2018

UGP Acupuncture, P.C. v. 21st Century Ins. Co.

UGP Acupuncture, P.C., as the assignee of Santana, Nicole, appealed an order from the Civil Court that granted summary judgment to 21st Century Insurance Company. The action sought to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant had dismissed the complaint, arguing that the amounts claimed for acupuncture services after April 1, 2013, exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term affirmed the Civil Court's decision, reiterating its prior holding that insurers may lawfully use the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services, even if performed by a licensed acupuncturist rather than a chiropractor. Therefore, the order granting summary judgment to the insurer was affirmed.

No-fault benefitsacupuncture servicesworkers' compensation fee schedulesummary judgmentappellate reviewinsurance lawmedical billingfee reduction
References
1
Case No. 2017-905 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2019

BQE Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by BQE Acupuncture, P.C. against State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. after the Civil Court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment and denied BQE Acupuncture's cross-motion. BQE Acupuncture sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, but State Farm asserted that the amounts claimed exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the Civil Court's order. The court reiterated its prior holding that insurers may properly utilize the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors when determining reimbursement for licensed acupuncturists.

No-Fault BenefitsAcupuncture ServicesWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeFee ReductionChiropractic ServicesAssigned BenefitsCivil Court Decision
References
2
Case No. 2015-1339 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

GBI Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by GBI Acupuncture, P.C. from a Civil Court order granting State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.'s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Term found that State Farm's denial of claim forms for the first four causes of action were untimely, thus reversing that portion of the lower court's decision. However, with respect to the fifth through eighth causes of action, the court affirmed State Farm's practice of using the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors to determine payment for licensed acupuncturists. The order was therefore modified by denying summary judgment for the first four causes of action, and otherwise affirmed. The case cites previous rulings on timely verification requests and the application of workers' compensation fee schedules.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentTimely denialVerification requestsFee scheduleAcupuncture servicesChiropractorsWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate reviewCivil Court order
References
2
Case No. 2013-2706 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2016

NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

This case, NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., concerned an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County. The plaintiff, NYS Acupuncture, P.C., sought assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm, which had moved for summary judgment arguing full payment according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Civil Court initially granted State Farm's motion. On appeal, NYS Acupuncture, P.C. contended that the fee schedule reductions were improper. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the prior ruling, finding that State Farm adequately demonstrated it had fully compensated the plaintiff for acupuncture services based on the applicable workers' compensation fee schedule for services performed by chiropractors, referencing Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co.

Workers' Compensation Fee ScheduleNo-Fault BenefitsAcupuncture ServicesChiropractorsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeFee Schedule ReductionAssigned BenefitsMedical Billing
References
1
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00798 [224 AD3d 495]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Camrem C. (Lydia C.)

Lydia C. appealed a Family Court order that found she neglected her child, Camrem C., by inflicting or allowing physical harm. The Family Court's finding was based on extensive medical evidence showing the child had multiple welts, lacerations, and bruises in various stages of healing, indicating a pattern of corporal punishment. This medical evidence corroborated out-of-court statements made by the child to a paraprofessional, the Child Advocacy Center, and an ACS caseworker. The appellant's testimony, which attributed the injuries to a single incident, was deemed insufficient to account for the variety of injuries observed. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the neglect finding, concluding that the record supported the Family Court's decision and that the appellant, at a minimum, should have been aware of the injuries and acted to protect the child.

Child NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewPhysical HarmCorporal PunishmentMedical EvidenceOut-of-court StatementsCredibility FindingsParental ResponsibilityChild Protection
References
4
Case No. 26 NY3d 107 (2016)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2016

S.B. v. A.C.C.

This case addresses the definition of "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) for purposes of custody and visitation for unmarried couples. The New York Court of Appeals overrules its 1991 decision in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., which had limited parental standing to biological or adoptive parents. The Court now holds that a non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing if they can show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive and raise a child together. In Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., the Appellate Division's order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings under this new standard. In Matter of Estrellita A. v Jennifer L.D., the Appellate Division's order is affirmed, upholding standing based on judicial estoppel. This decision aims to address the unworkability of the Alison D. rule in light of evolving familial relationships, particularly for same-sex couples, and to protect the best interests of children.

Parental RightsCustodyVisitationSame-Sex CouplesNontraditional FamiliesEquitable EstoppelJudicial EstoppelPre-Conception AgreementDomestic Relations LawOverruling Precedent
References
28
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05500 [242 AD3d 829]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2025

DeMarco v. C.A.C. Indus., Inc.

The plaintiff, Peter DeMarco, suffered personal injuries when excavation walls collapsed at a Queens work site. He sued C.A.C. Industries, Inc., a contractor that provided a backhoe and operating engineer to his employer, the City of New York Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The Supreme Court, Queens County, partially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing claims under Labor Law § 200 and certain Labor Law § 241 (6) violations, while denying dismissal of the common-law negligence claim. The plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendant lacked authority to supervise for the Labor Law claims but failed to demonstrate a special employment relationship, leaving triable issues of fact regarding the common-law negligence claim and whether the defendant's excavation created or exacerbated the dangerous condition.

Excavation CollapseTrench SafetyLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSpecial EmploymentContractor NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary Judgment AppealDuty of Care
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 3,622 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