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

Frances Schervier Home & Hospital Inc. v. Axelrod

This case concerns an appeal regarding Medicaid reimbursement rates for a residential health care facility. The Department of Health (DOH) disallowed certain costs from the petitioner's 1981 cost report, affecting 1983-1985 rates. Petitioner appealed, arguing it was a data error, not an alternative cost allocation method requiring prior approval. After DOH denied the appeal, the Supreme Court annulled DOH's determination, ruling in favor of the petitioner. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding DOH's interpretation of its regulations regarding data error corrections to be irrational.

Medicaid reimbursement ratescost reportDepartment of Healthresidential health care facilityCPLR article 78administrative lawdata errorcost allocationagency interpretationirrational interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Board of Education v. Ambach

This CPLR article 78 proceeding challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Education. The Commissioner ordered the petitioner, the Committee on the Handicapped, District 28 (COH), to reimburse Marilyn P. for tuition and maintenance costs for her handicapped child. The COH had initially found the child not handicapped and failed to provide timely formal written notice of its determination to the mother, violating Education Law regulations. An independent hearing officer reversed the COH's finding but denied reimbursement. Upon appeal, the Commissioner affirmed the handicapped finding and ordered reimbursement due to the COH's procedural violations. The court upheld the Commissioner's finding that the child was handicapped and the entitlement to reimbursement, citing a rational basis for the decision and deference to the agency's interpretation. However, the court modified the determination, annulling the order for the petitioner to pay the full cost, and remitted the matter for apportionment of costs between the petitioner and the State of New York, as per Education Law sections 4405 and 4407.

CPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewEducation LawHandicapped Child PlacementTuition ReimbursementProcedural Due ProcessNotice RequirementsTimeliness ViolationsAgency DeferenceCost Apportionment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 1974

Coyle v. New York State Civil Service Commission

The petitioner, a Head Industrial Shop Worker (Grade 11) at Pilgrim State Hospital, sought reclassification to Chief Industrial Shop Worker (Grade 13) through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The Supreme Court at Special Term dismissed the application, a decision subsequently appealed. The appellate court found adequate basis in the record for the denial of the petitioner's application, concluding that it was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The Director of Classification and Compensation had determined that the petitioner was not performing the duties of a Chief Industrial Shop Worker and that the position was no longer necessary at Pilgrim State Hospital as patients or inmates were no longer involved in the relevant operations. The judgment was affirmed without costs.

ReclassificationCivil ServiceState HospitalEmployment DisputeJob GradeSupervisory RoleAdministrative DecisionJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingPilgrim State Hospital
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2003

Hitchcock v. Kilts

This case concerns an appeal from Family Court orders dismissing a petitioner's applications for custody modification and an order of protection, and granting a respondent's application to reinstate a prior custody order. The petitioner alleged the respondent had abused their children, but the Family Court found these disclosures embellished and reinstated custody to the respondent. The appellate court affirmed, finding a sound basis for the Family Court's decision, noting the children's exposure to domestic violence while the petitioner resided with the respondent. The court concluded that a change in custody to the petitioner would not be in the children's best interests, rejecting arguments that undue significance was given to the prior order or that the Law Guardian's view was ignored. The orders were affirmed without costs.

Custody disputeChild abuse allegationsFamily offenseOrder of protectionCustody modificationBest interests of the childAppellate reviewDomestic violenceWitness credibilitySocial worker testimony
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1962

In re the Arbitration between Frank Chevrolet Corp. & Meyers

The petitioner appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 23, 1962. This initial order dismissed the petition, denied the petitioner's application for a stay of arbitration, and directed the parties to proceed with arbitration under a collective labor agreement. The petitioner also appealed from a second order, issued the same day, which granted a motion for reargument but ultimately adhered to the original decision. The appellate court affirmed the order entered on reargument, with costs, and dismissed the appeal from the original order, stating it was superseded.

ArbitrationCollective Labor AgreementStay of ArbitrationAppealReargumentOrder AffirmedWestchester County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1988

De Coste v. Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital

Decedent, Darwin A. De Coste, experienced chest pain and elevated blood pressure, leading him to Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital where he was seen by Dr. William Amsterlaw. Amsterlaw diagnosed reflux esophagitis despite an abnormal electrocardiogram, discharging De Coste, who subsequently suffered a fatal cardiopulmonary arrest 12 hours later. The administrator of De Coste's estate filed a wrongful death action, alleging medical malpractice and that the misdiagnosis was the proximate cause of death. A jury awarded pecuniary damages and funeral expenses, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, finding rational support for the jury's malpractice finding and rejecting the defendants' argument to reduce the award by Social Security benefits due to the effective date of CPLR 4545 (c).

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseCollateral Source RuleCPLR 4545Jury VerdictEmergency Room CareMisdiagnosisArteriosclerosisMyocardial Infarction
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deluca v. Arch Insurance Group

This case involves an appeal from an order and judgment concerning an arbitration award. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, confirmed an arbitration award dated December 12, 2011, in favor of the petitioner, and denied a cross-petition by Arch Insurance Group and Gallagher Bassett Services to vacate the award. Arch Insurance Group and Gallagher Bassett Services appealed this decision. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order dated June 5, 2012, as the right of direct appeal terminated with the entry of judgment. The court affirmed the judgment, finding the petitioner's service of the demand for arbitration proper and noting that insufficiencies did not warrant vacatur. The arbitrator's award was found to have evidentiary support and a rational basis, and was not duplicative of any worker’s compensation benefits. One bill of costs was awarded to the petitioner.

Arbitration ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewInsurance ArbitrationUninsured MotoristUnderinsured MotoristEvidentiary SupportArbitrary and Capricious StandardSufficiency of Arbitration Demand
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2003

Williams v. Doherty

The petitioner's termination as a sanitation worker by the respondent Sanitation Commissioner was confirmed on June 6, 2003. The petition, brought under CPLR article 78 and transferred from the Supreme Court, New York County, was denied and dismissed without costs. The court found substantial evidence to support the determination that the petitioner violated the respondent's rules and regulations. The court also noted that there was no basis to disturb the respondent's credibility findings, citing Matter of Berenhaus v Ward. Given the petitioner's history of discipline over a relatively short employment period, the penalty was deemed not to shock the court's sense of fairness.

Sanitation WorkerTerminationDisciplinary ActionRules and RegulationsCredibility FindingsPenalty ReviewAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingJudicial ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. ADJ11059431; ADJ11059347
Regular
Dec 02, 2020

PATRICIA DE LA RIVA vs. HORIZON PERSONNEL SERVICES, THE HARTFORD

This case involves a cost petitioner's request for reconsideration of a prior WCJ order. The WCJ had found that the cost petitioner waived further claims by not objecting to an order allowing only a portion of their requested costs. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. This was because the WCJ failed to rule on all issues presented in the cost petitioner's petition, specifically penalties, interest, attorney's fees, and sanctions, as required by Labor Code § 5313.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Allowing CostsPetition for CostsLabor Code § 5313WCJFindings of Fact and OrderAOE/COEHorizon Personnel ServicesThe Hartford
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 1992

Saitanis Enterprises, Inc. v. Hines

The petitioner initiated a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to challenge a determination by the New York State Department of Labor. The Department of Labor's determination, dated January 21, 1992, found that the petitioner failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements to its employees in violation of Labor Law § 220. The court confirmed the Department of Labor's determination, finding that the record supported the finding of underpayment and that the calculation of underpayment was supported by substantial evidence. The court also deemed the petitioner's argument regarding worker classification as untimely, noting that challenges to prevailing wage rate schedules must be made within four months of receipt. Consequently, the proceeding was dismissed on the merits, with costs.

prevailing wagesunderpaymentDepartment of Laborcredibility determinationsworker classificationtimeliness of challengeadministrative agencysubstantial evidencelabor law violationjudicial review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,909 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