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

Claim of Moysello v. David

The claimant, a taxicab driver for David’s Taxi and David Enterprises, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in January 2007. An investigation by the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that Charles David and David Enterprises were the uninsured "true owners" and employers. A workers’ compensation law judge found them to be employers and uninsured, a decision affirmed by the Board, which found they met the presumptive definition of employer under Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (former [3]) and had proper jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that proper notice of the hearing was received despite competing address claims.

Motor Vehicle AccidentTaxicab DriverEmployer DefinitionUninsured EmployerWorkers' Compensation LawNotice of HearingBoard ReviewAppellate DecisionSubstantial EvidenceCorporate Ownership
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2010

Morris v. David Lerner Associates

Dora Morris sued her former employer, David Lerner Associates (DLA), and its President, David Lerner, for employment discrimination. She alleged gender discrimination due to unequal pay and a hostile work environment, claiming she was paid less than male counterparts and subjected to inappropriate comments and actions by Lerner. Morris also alleged retaliatory termination after complaining about the pay disparity. Defendants moved to dismiss parts of the complaint, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to state a claim. The Court denied the defendants' motion, finding that Morris's hostile work environment and retaliatory termination claims were reasonably related to her EEOC charge and were adequately pled under legal standards.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationMotion to DismissEEOC ExhaustionPleading StandardTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawDisparate Treatment
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re David J.

This dissenting opinion argues against the Family Court's decision to return Candice, Christine, and David to their parents, Roslyn K. and Steven K., after the petitioner charged the parents with neglect. The parents previously fled the state with the children, violating a court order. The dissent cites medical neglect of the daughters, alleged physical abuse and extreme isolation of David by his stepfather, and the mother's refusal to send David to school. The dissenting judge concludes that the parents' non-compliance and bizarre behavior create an imminent risk to the children's well-being, advocating for continued foster care.

Child neglectParental non-complianceChild welfareFamily Court proceedingsChild abuse allegationsMedical care refusalEducational neglectDissenting opinionBest interests of childTemporary removal order
References
9
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02784 [194 AD3d 691]
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2021

David v. David

The infant plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident. The plaintiffs sought approval for a settlement, but Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, the administrator of the infant plaintiff's mother's self-funded employee benefit plan, asserted a subrogation lien for medical expenses. The Supreme Court denied the lien, citing New York's anti-subrogation statute, General Obligations Law § 5-335. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the self-funded plan was governed by ERISA, which preempts the state anti-subrogation statute. Consequently, the subrogation lien was deemed enforceable against the settlement proceeds.

ERISA PreemptionSubrogation LienSelf-Funded Employee BenefitsPersonal Injury SettlementAnti-Subrogation StatuteAppellate DivisionInfant CompromiseAutomobile AccidentReimbursement ClaimsNew York Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2001

In re David M-H.

The case concerns an appeal by a mother from an Orange County Family Court order dated October 2, 2001. The order committed the guardianship and custody of her child, David M-H, to the Orange County Department of Social Services for adoption by foster parents, following an adjudication of permanent neglect. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, reiterating that parental rights can be terminated based on clear and convincing proof of permanent neglect. The court found that the petitioner, the Orange County Department of Social Services, demonstrated the mother's failure to plan for the child's return and disregard of agency orders despite diligent efforts, making termination in the child's best interests. Additionally, the court ruled that a caseworker's hearsay testimony was properly admitted at the dispositional hearing, being material and relevant to whether the mother violated a prior court order.

Parental Rights TerminationPermanent NeglectFamily Court ActSocial Services LawCustody and GuardianshipAdoptionAppellate ReviewClear and Convincing EvidenceDiligent EffortsHearsay Admissibility
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 1979

In re David R.

The New York City Department of Social Services petitioned for approval to transfer the custody of David R. under a 'Voluntary Placement Agreement' signed by the maternal grandmother. The child was under two months old and hospitalized at the time. The court evaluated the validity of the agreement, questioning if the maternal grandmother had the right or understanding to place the child, particularly due to a language barrier as she only spoke Spanish and no interpreter was provided during the signing. The court found no binding contract existed, citing the grandmother's lack of authority to place the child, the language problem, and deliberate misrepresentation by the department. Furthermore, the court found that the placement was not in the child's best interests, as the department failed to contact the parents before accepting placement. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the child was to be returned to the parents.

Child CustodyVoluntary Placement AgreementSocial Services LawContract ValidityLanguage BarrierDue ProcessParental RightsMaternal GrandmotherFamily Court JurisdictionBest Interests of the Child
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bautista v. David Frankel Realty, Inc.

This dissenting opinion addresses the legal concept of "special employment" under Workers’ Compensation Law. The plaintiff, a building porter, sustained an on-the-job injury, received workers' compensation, and subsequently filed a lawsuit against David Frankel Realty, Inc. (DFR), the building's managing agent. The core legal question is whether DFR should be considered the plaintiff's "special employer," which would legally preclude the plaintiff's lawsuit. The dissent argues that the evidence conclusively demonstrates DFR's status as a special employer, particularly through its control over the building superintendent, who directly supervised the plaintiff. Criticizing the majority's deviation from established precedents, the dissent advocates for the affirmation of the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment, which would dismiss the complaint against DFR.

special employmentworkers' compensationmanaging agentbuilding staffgeneral employercontrolsupervisionsummary judgmentliabilityNew York law
References
15
Case No. 533324
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of David Yolinsky

Claimant David Yolinsky, a firefighter, sustained a work-related right knee injury in July 2016. After initial treatment, his symptoms were deemed "essentially resolved" by August 2017. Following a 17-month treatment gap and new knee pain from playing volleyball, a 2019 MRI revealed a defect, and surgery was recommended. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially granted authorization, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding no causal relationship between the requested surgery and the 2016 injury. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the minimal initial lost time, lack of significant early findings, and the 17-month treatment gap.

Knee InjuryCausation DisputeMedical Expert TestimonyAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmedSurgical Authorization DeniedIndependent Medical EvaluationChondral DefectBaker's CystFirefighter
References
7
Case No. 534443
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of David Dunlap

In October 2019, claimant David Dunlap, an airline pilot, filed for workers' compensation benefits, asserting work-related brain damage and neurological disorders due to toxic fume inhalation. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially disallowed the claim, citing a lack of established causally-related disability. Dunlap's subsequent application for review by the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) was denied because he failed to fully complete question 13 of form RB-89, specifically omitting identification of a toxicologist's report. The Board also denied his request for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed both Board decisions, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the application for review due to non-compliance with its regulations.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative ReviewRegulatory ComplianceApplication DenialBoard DiscretionAppellate DivisionToxic Fume InhalationCausally-Related DisabilityForm RB-89Medical Evidence
References
9
Case No. CV-24-2093
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of David Sylvester

David Sylvester sustained work-related left shoulder injuries in 2017 and 2021, leading to awards for schedule loss of use (SLU) of his left arm. Following the 2021 injury, medical opinions differed on the extent of SLU, with the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) ultimately determining a 40% SLU without addressing a credit for a prior 10% SLU award. The Workers' Compensation Board, in an April 2024 decision, confirmed the 40% SLU and granted the carrier a credit for the earlier award. Sylvester's subsequent application for reconsideration or full Board review was denied in June 2024. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's denial, finding no abuse of discretion as Sylvester failed to present new evidence or a material change in condition.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseLeft Arm InjuryReconsideration ApplicationFull Board ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousPrior Award CreditMaximum Medical Improvement
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 612 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