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. 2024 NY Slip Op 01713 [227 AD3d 36]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2024

Matter of Merrill

Anthony V. Merrill, an attorney, faced 11 charges of professional misconduct, including identity theft, commingling client funds, breach of fiduciary duty, and failure to maintain proper records and file required statements with the Office of Court Administration. The Special Referee sustained all charges. The Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed the Special Referee's report and suspended Merrill from the practice of law for 18 months, without credit for prior suspension time. Merrill's misconduct occurred during a period when he was suffering from an untreated compulsive gambling addiction, for which he has since sought treatment and maintained abstinence.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethicsClient fundsFiduciary duty breachIdentity theftRecord keeping violationsSuspension from practiceGambling addictionMitigating circumstancesAppellate Division
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05220 [220 AD3d 504]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2023

Alberico v. Riverside Unit C, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court order denying defendant-appellant Riverside Unit C, LLC's motion for summary judgment. Riverside had sought dismissal of claims against it, arguing they were barred by Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions. However, the court found no evidence that Riverside was an alter ego of plaintiff's employer, Nest Seekers International LLC, despite Nest Seekers being the sole owner of Riverside. The two companies operated as separate entities, maintaining distinct responsibilities through a lease agreement, separate bank accounts, and individual tax filings, demonstrating a lack of commingling or domination.

Workers' Compensation LawAlter Ego DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionCorporate SeparatenessEmployer LiabilityIntercorporate RelationsAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityLandlord-Tenant LawCorporate Veil
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2013

Verdon v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Plaintiff sustained injuries after falling 14 feet from a trailing platform due to a broken guardrail. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) as the guardrail proved inadequate. The defendants' arguments regarding an unwitnessed accident not barring summary judgment and the rejection of a superseding cause defense were dismissed. However, the third-party defendants and second third-party defendant (lumber suppliers) were granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaints against them due to insufficient evidence to identify the specific lumber supplier for the broken guardrail, as lumber was commingled and discarded before inspection.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentGuardrail FailureConstruction AccidentFall from HeightThird-Party LiabilityLumber SupplierSuperseding CauseEvidentiary StandardUnwitnessed Accident
References
11
Case No. 12-09-00274-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2010

James Truman Henslee v. Mary Glenda Henslee

This is an appeal from a divorce decree where James Truman Henslee challenged the trial court's characterization of a Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) settlement and disability insurance proceeds as community property, arguing it wrongly divested him of his separate estate. The appellate court reviewed the FELA settlement documents and found that James failed to meet his burden of proving what portion of the settlement was separate property, thus upholding the trial court's presumption that the entire settlement was community property due to commingling of community and separate claims. Regarding the disability policy proceeds, the court affirmed their characterization as community property, noting they were intended to replace earnings lost during the marriage. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Divorce DecreeProperty CharacterizationMarital PropertySeparate PropertyCommunity PropertyFELA SettlementDisability Insurance ProceedsLost Earning CapacityMedical ExpensesCommingling of Funds
References
19
Case No. 159705
Regular Panel Decision

Eldridge v. Eldridge

This is an appeal in a divorce case between Deborah Marie West Eldridge (Wife) and Huntington Eldridge, Jr. (Husband). The Wife appeals the trial court's decisions regarding the distribution and classification of marital property, child support, alimony, and alleges judicial bias and appearance of impropriety. The Husband also raises issues on appeal. The appellate court addresses each of Wife's points, including the trial court's handling of ex parte communications and the commingling of separate and marital assets. The court affirmed the trial court's decision on some issues, such as the denial of attorney's fees to the Wife, and reversed others, particularly the classification of certain investment accounts as mixed assets and the calculation of child support and alimony, remanding these issues for reconsideration.

Property DivisionChild SupportAlimonyJudicial ImpartialityMarital AssetsSeparate AssetsComminglingTransmutationAppellate ReviewDivorce Proceedings
References
38
Case No. 05-17-01010-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2018

Abraham Khajeie, Ali Soltanian and Masoud Tashakori v. Ruben Garcia-Martinez

Ruben Garcia-Martinez sued Eagle Wholesale, Inc. and its owners for negligence and alter ego after sustaining injuries from a forklift fall. The trial court found both the corporation and its owners jointly and severally liable for $50,000. The owners appealed, contending that Garcia failed to present sufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil and hold them individually liable under an alter ego theory. The Court of Appeals agreed, finding no evidence of commingling funds, misrepresentation of financial backing, diversion of profits, inadequate capitalization, or failure to separate corporate and personal assets. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment regarding the individual liability of the owners and remanded the case for an amended judgment consistent with its opinion.

Corporate VeilAlter Ego DoctrineIndividual LiabilityNegligenceWorkplace InjuryForklift AccidentLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewTexas LawJoint and Several Liability
References
8
Case No. 03-96-00151-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 1997

Pedro Antonio Diaz v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Pedro Antonio Diaz appealed a trial court judgment that suspended his authority to practice law for eighteen months. The suspension followed a jury's finding that Diaz violated three disciplinary rules: making a false statement of material fact to a tribunal, commingling lawyer and client funds, and engaging in dishonest conduct. Diaz challenged the submission of additional violations and the sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the district court proceedings were original and independent, allowing for the assertion of additional claims. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings regarding the false statements made in an affidavit and rejected arguments concerning materiality and Diaz's role as a party.

lawyer disciplineprofessional misconductfalse statementscommingling fundsattorney suspensionappellate reviewTexas lawlegal ethicssummary judgmentequitable lien
References
3
Case No. 2022-06115
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2025

Matter of Plasse

The Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts initiated disciplinary proceedings against attorney Andrew F. Plasse for professional misconduct involving his escrow account. Plasse faced four charges: misappropriating client funds through deficiencies in his escrow account, commingling personal and client funds by depositing earned legal fees, routinely failing to promptly withdraw earned fees, and failing to maintain accurate bookkeeping records. A Special Referee sustained all charges, which Plasse did not contest, offering mitigation. Considering Plasse's prior disciplinary history, including a public censure, the Court granted the motion to confirm the report and suspended him from the practice of law for a period of one year, commencing October 10, 2025.

Attorney disciplineProfessional misconductEscrow account violationsClient fund misappropriationCommingling fundsBookkeeping failuresLawyer suspensionGrievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionJudicial ethics
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2010

In re Salo

Respondent Frederick William Salo, an attorney, faced disciplinary charges from the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (DDC) for various professional misconducts including misappropriation of third-party funds, commingling, and improper check designations. Salo admitted the factual allegations but argued a lack of venal intent, attributing his actions to severe PTSD and depression following the 9/11 attacks, which impaired his ability to manage his IOLA account. Expert psychological reports confirmed his condition. The court, while sustaining most charges, dismissed the charge of intentional conversion due to insufficient proof of venal intent, acknowledging the impact of his PTSD. Despite the non-venal nature of the misappropriation, the court deemed a one-year suspension from the practice of law to be the appropriate sanction.

attorney disciplineprofessional misconductescrow account violationsclient fundsmisappropriationcomminglingPTSDpsychological impairmentmitigating circumstancesvenal intent
References
5
Case No. 01-12-00578-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2015

Jim P. Benge, M.D. and Kelsey-Seybold Medical Group PLLC v. Lauren Williams

Lauren Williams filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Jim P. Benge, M.D., and Kelsey-Seybold Medical Group, PLLC, following a laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy that resulted in a perforated bowel and permanent colostomy. The jury found Dr. Benge negligent. The First Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, citing an impermissible commingling of valid and invalid liability theories in the jury charge. Williams' motion for rehearing argues the trial court's broad-form negligence question was appropriate, and evidence of Dr. Benge's failure to disclose the inexperienced resident's significant surgical participation was relevant to proving professional negligence, not an invalid informed consent claim. She seeks to have the rehearing granted and the original judgment affirmed.

Informed consentMedical malpracticeSurgical negligenceLaparoscopic hysterectomyBowel perforationAppellate reviewJury charge errorCausationPhysician experienceResident participation
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 29 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