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. 2014-773 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2016

Laga v. Foremost Signature Ins. Co.

In this action, provider Adelaida M. Laga, as assignee of Jenny Jimenez, sought assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Foremost Signature Insurance Company. The Civil Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the defendant failed to legally establish that the fees charged exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the Civil Court's order and denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, siding with the plaintiff's argument.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate reviewInsurance claimMedical providerAssigneeCivil CourtAppellate TermDenial of benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Korman v. Sachs

This case concerns an appeal challenging the invalidation of Lorraine Backal's designating petition for Judge of the Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County. The Supreme Court initially ruled her petition invalid, citing fewer than the required 5,000 signatures under Election Law § 6-136 (2) (b). On appeal, while the court upheld the factual finding of insufficient signatures, it deemed the 5,000-signature requirement for Bronx County unconstitutional. The court found this disparity, compared to 2,000 signatures for counties of similar population outside New York City, violated the Equal Protection Clause. Consequently, the judgment invalidating Backal's petition was reversed, and the Board of Elections was directed to place her name on the ballot.

Election LawDesignating PetitionsConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionBallot AccessSignature RequirementsJudicial ElectionsNew York StateAppellate ReviewSurrogate's Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moskowitz v. Board of Elections

The petitioner, an orthodox observer of Jewish Sabbaths and religious holidays, sought an order to compel the Board of Elections of the City of New York to accept signatures for his independent nominating petition after the statutory deadline of September 21, 1966. He argued that religious observances prevented him and his campaign workers from collecting signatures for 8 days, requesting additional time. The court found this argument "specious," noting that 42 days were allotted, and the petitioner only obtained 99 signatures in the remaining 32 days. The petitioner's secondary argument, challenging the constitutionality of requiring 3,000 signatures for independent candidates versus 750 for party candidates, was also rejected, citing prior case law that upheld the distinction. Consequently, the court denied the application and dismissed the petition.

Election LawIndependent CandidateNominating PetitionsSignature RequirementsReligious ObservanceStatutory DeadlinesConstitutional ChallengeJudicial DiscretionCandidate EligibilityBoard of Elections
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Directors of Rough Riders Landing Homeowners Ass'n v. Signature Group, LLC

Plaintiffs, an association and condominium boards in Montauk, New York, sued Signature Group, LLC and Selective Insurance Company of America to recover overpaid premiums on a Standard Flood Insurance Policy. The action was originally filed in state court and subsequently removed to federal court by the defendants. Plaintiffs moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing a lack of federal jurisdiction. The District Court, however, denied the motion, finding that federal question jurisdiction exists because the claims for refund of SFIP premiums implicate significant federal issues and federal funds, requiring uniform interpretation of the National Flood Insurance Program's manual.

Flood insuranceNational Flood Insurance ProgramNFIPStandard Flood Insurance PolicySFIPWrite-Your-Own ProgramWYOPFEMAFederal Emergency Management AgencyInsurance premiums
References
11
Case No. ADJ9921643
Regular
Jul 09, 2019

Katherine Turner vs. CITY OF CULVER CITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision that deemed lien claims invalid due to electronic signatures on declarations. The Board found that electronic signatures, specifically the "S signature" format used in electronic filings, are legally sufficient under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. Consequently, the prior decision invalidating the liens based on the lack of a "wet" signature was rescinded, and the case was returned for further proceedings. The Board clarified that electronic signatures satisfy the requirements of Labor Code section 4903.8(d) declarations.

Labor Code section 4903.8(d)electronic signaturewet signaturepenalty of perjurylien claimantWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsiderationfindings of fact and ordersadministrative law judgeUniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA)
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fuchsberg v. Lomenzo

This case concerns cross-appeals from a Supreme Court judgment related to an independent nominating petition for Jacob D. Fuchsberg, a candidate for Chief Judge. The petitioner sought to validate his petition after the Secretary of State initially declared it void due to an insufficient number of valid signatures. The lower court found 20,170 valid signatures, exceeding the 20,000 required, and thus validated the petition. However, the appellate court performed its own physical count, determining only 19,714 valid signatures remained after subtracting invalid ones. The court also upheld the invalidation of signatures from individuals who voted in a primary election, irrespective of their specific vote for a candidate. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's judgment and dismissed the petition due to the insufficient number of valid signatures.

Election LawNominating PetitionSignaturesVoter DisqualificationPrimary ElectionAppellate ReviewReversalJudicial RecountCandidate EligibilitySecretary of State
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Menin v. Tully

The petitioner, an estate planner and life insurance agent, sought to review a State Tax Commission determination sustaining a deficiency assessment for unincorporated business taxes for various years between 1964 and 1974. The respondent concluded that the petitioner was an independent contractor rather than an employee. Petitioner worked under an agent’s career contract for New England Life Insurance Company and its general agent, but also sold insurance for other principals and operated with considerable independence, including maintaining his own office and incurring substantial business expenses. The court affirmed the determination, finding substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the petitioner was an independent contractor and therefore subject to the unincorporated business tax.

unincorporated business taxindependent contractorinsurance agentState Tax Commissiontax assessmentCPLR Article 78employer controlbusiness expensestax deficiencyappellate review
References
8
Case No. ADJ6940334
Regular
Jan 28, 2011

AURELIO RAMOS LOPEZ vs. JESUS AGUILAR dba C&A FRAMING et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded a deficient arbitrator's judgment, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The original "Judgment" failed to comply with statutory requirements for a decision, lacking an opinion and a signature. Defendant Granite argued denial of due process due to insufficient time for discovery after being joined as a party. Defendant C&A contended substantial evidence supported coverage by AIG on the date of injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJudgmentArbitrationCoverageDate of InjuryDue ProcessDiscoverySubstantial EvidenceWaiver
References
2
Case No. ADJ8027549
Regular
Aug 04, 2014

MARIA MEZA vs. OMNIA ITALIAN DESIGN, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration. The petition challenged the finding that the applicant received proper notice of the Medical Provider Network (MPN). The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found sufficient evidence of notice, including the applicant's admitted signature on an MPN acknowledgment form. Furthermore, the Board noted that even if notice was deficient, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that this failure resulted in a denial of medical care, a prerequisite for overturning the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationMedical Provider NetworkMPN noticeLabor Code § 4616.3Administrative Law JudgeLien claimantsCompromise and ReleaseService of noticeApplicant testimony
References
0
Case No. ADJ9865530
Regular
Mar 20, 2015

Baldemar Gonzalez, Jr. vs. Morganite Industries, Gallagher Bassett

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior award. The petition was dismissed because it was filed untimely and was not properly verified. Although the applicant alleged fraud in obtaining the award, and the stipulations appear to lack a required signature, the Board cannot act on these grounds due to procedural deficiencies and expired timeframes. The applicant may still pursue relief under the Board's continuing jurisdiction concerning rescission, alteration, or amendment of the award within five years of the date of injury.

Petition for ReconsiderationStipulations with Request for Awardfraudmisrepresentationuntimely filingverificationLabor Code Section 5902Labor Code Section 5903continuing jurisdictionLabor Code Sections 5803-5804
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 516 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