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. 2017 NY Slip Op 07357
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2017

Matter of Kathleen NN. (Dennis NN.)

This case involves three neglect proceedings initiated by the Sullivan County Department of Family Services and the Attorney for the Child against Dennis NN. (father), Justin EE. (mother's boyfriend), and Angelica FF. (mother) concerning Kathleen NN., an alleged neglected child. The Family Court of Sullivan County initially dismissed all three petitions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the dismissal concerning Dennis NN., finding that his actions of dropping the child during an altercation placed her in imminent danger of harm, thus granting the neglect petition against him and remitting the matter for a dispositional hearing. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissals against Justin EE. and Angelica FF., concluding that there was insufficient evidence to prove neglect or that Justin EE. was a legal custodian at the time of the incident, and that the mother's conduct did not demonstrate imminent danger to the child.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActImminent DangerParental ResponsibilitySafety Plan Non-ComplianceAppellate DivisionChild CustodyPreponderance of EvidencePhysical AltercationChild Protective Report
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1978

SOCIALIST WKRS. PARTY v. Attorney General of US

This case involves an action by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) against various federal agencies and officials, primarily the Attorney General and the FBI, for alleged constitutional violations stemming from extensive FBI informant activities and disruption programs. The current opinion addresses the Attorney General's refusal to comply with a May 31, 1977, court order to produce 18 confidential FBI informant files to plaintiffs' counsel. The court rejected the Attorney General's arguments concerning informant confidentiality, appellate review, and alternative sanctions, emphasizing the files' indispensable nature for the litigation of plaintiffs' claims, which include demands for damages and injunctive relief. The court ruled that the Attorney General must comply with the production order by July 7, 1978, or face civil contempt, underscoring the judiciary's power to enforce orders even against high-ranking government officials.

Informant ConfidentialityDiscovery DisputeCivil ContemptGovernment MisconductFBI SurveillancePolitical OrganizationsFirst Amendment RightsConstitutional ViolationsAppellate ReviewAttorney General
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. VNO 0409413
Regular
Jul 18, 2008

LINDA SALVANERA vs. KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICES, CNA CASUALTY OF CALIFORNIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and issued a notice of intent to sanction defense attorney Ian D. Paige for attaching previously presented or record documents to his petition for reconsideration without alleging newly discovered evidence. This action violated WCAB regulations and is considered a sanctionable bad-faith tactic under Labor Code §5813 for willful failure to comply with regulatory obligations. The Board intends to impose a $200 sanction unless the attorney demonstrates good cause to the contrary.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Bad Faith ActionsRegulatory ViolationIan D. PaigeStockwell Harris Widom Woolverton & MuehlDue ProcessNotice of Intention
References
11
Case No. ADJ5690219
Regular
Jul 31, 2015

TOM PALLADINO vs. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award and issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions on applicant's attorney. This action stems from alleged false, misleading, and unsubstantiated allegations made by the attorney in the applicant's Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration. The Board found no evidence to support the claims of intentional delay by the defendant and determined the attorney's statements to be without merit and potentially prejudicial. The attorney and his firm face a $750 sanction unless good cause is shown why it should not be imposed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardQualified Medical EvaluatorPermanent DisabilityApportionmentSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10561Attorney Misconduct
References
0
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04524 [186 AD3d 23]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2020

Matter of Doris

The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) initiated a disciplinary proceeding against attorney Lawrence A. Doris following client complaints of professional misconduct, including failure to file a personal injury case and lack of communication. Despite numerous attempts by the AGC through letters, emails, and a judicial subpoena, Mr. Doris failed to respond to the allegations or appear for a deposition. The AGC subsequently moved for his immediate suspension from the practice of law due to his willful noncompliance and failure to cooperate with their investigation. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the AGC's motion, finding that Mr. Doris's conduct warranted immediate suspension. This decision underscores the importance of attorney cooperation in disciplinary matters and protection of the public interest.

Attorney disciplineProfessional misconductNoncooperation with investigationImmediate suspensionGrievance CommitteeClient complaintFailure to communicateJudicial subpoenaPublic interest threatAppellate Division
References
6
Case No. ADJ4406096 (LAO 0784412)
Regular

JOSE MORFIN vs. WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER

Defendant sought removal from a WCJ's order stipulating to two Agreed Medical Evaluators (AMEs), alleging the WCJ "forced" the agreement. Applicant's attorney and the WCJ countered that defense counsel had agreed to and proposed the AMEs, with the WCJ merely documenting the stipulation. The Appeals Board denied removal as defendant showed no prejudice, but initiated its own removal to address the attorney's alleged false statements and vexatious tactics. Consequently, the Board intends to impose sanctions of up to $2,500 on the defendant and its attorneys for filing a frivolous petition containing misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorsWCJSanctionsBad Faith TacticsFrivolousUnnecessary DelayStipulationMisrepresentation of Facts
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2008

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Ramos

This case involves an action to collect a judgment against defendants-appellants, who are alleged to be the alter egos of a judgment debtor. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendants' affirmative defense of laches, ruling it pleaded only a bare legal conclusion without supporting facts. Subsequently, the court denied the defendants' motion to renew this defense. The appellate court unanimously affirmed both orders, concluding that the defense of laches was unavailable. It further noted that the affirmation provided by the defendants' attorney in support of amending the answer lacked probative value regarding any prejudice allegedly caused by the plaintiff's delay.

lachesalter egojudgment collectionaffirmative defensemotion to dismissmotion to renewappellate reviewCPLR 3013workers' compensation premiumsjudicial procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2014

Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

This Opinion & Order addresses a class and collective action filed by plaintiff Maxcimo Scott against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Minimum Wage Act due to the misclassification of "apprentices" as exempt from overtime pay. Chipotle asserted statutory good faith defenses under 29 U.S.C. §§ 259 and 260 but sought a protective order to prevent discovery of attorney-client communications, claiming it did not rely on legal advice. The court, presided over by U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, ruled that Chipotle's invocation of good faith defenses implicitly waived attorney-client privilege, as the advice of counsel was central to evaluating the sincerity of these defenses. Consequently, the court denied Chipotle's motion for a protective order, compelling the production of relevant privileged documents. Additionally, the decision permits discovery into Chipotle's differing classification of apprentices in California, deeming it relevant to the issue of willfulness and good faith in other states.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Minimum Wage Act (NYLL)Overtime CompensationWage and Hour DisputesClass Action LawsuitAttorney-Client PrivilegeAt-Issue WaiverGood Faith DefenseProtective Order MotionEmployment Misclassification
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 12,230 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