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

Perfect Dental, PLLC v. Allstate Insurance

In this consolidated action, plaintiffs Perfect Dental Care, P.C., Zodiac Dental, PLLC, and Smooth Dental PLLC (Dental PCs) sought unpaid insurance claims from Allstate Insurance Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Insurers). The Insurers countersued alleging insurance fraud and unjust enrichment, and initiated a third-party action against various individuals and entities. The Insurers moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a declaratory judgment that Dental PCs could not recover for services provided by dentists and physical therapists, and for summary judgment on their fraud and unjust enrichment counterclaims. The court denied summary judgment concerning dentists' services, finding a triable issue of fact regarding their employment status. However, it granted summary judgment for the Insurers regarding physical therapy services, as Dental PCs conceded these services were provided by non-employees. Consequently, the court also denied summary judgment on the fraud and unjust enrichment claims, as their resolution depended on the unresolved employment status of the dentists.

Insurance ClaimsHealthcare ServicesContract LawSummary JudgmentProfessional CorporationsIndependent ContractorsEmployment LawFraud AllegationsUnjust EnrichmentDeclaratory Judgment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

First District Dental Society v. Sencer

The petitioners, dental societies in New York City, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to challenge a directive from the New York City Department of Health. The directive, dated August 14, 1981, mandated that all radiation installation licensees, including dental offices, make complete copies of Article 175 of the New York City Health Code available for staff examination. Petitioners argued this requirement was arbitrary and capricious due to its impracticality, financial burden, and the existence of an alternative provision allowing a descriptive notice. Respondents defended the directive as a rational measure to protect public health and ensure worker instruction regarding radiation safety, aligning with state and federal regulations. The court, applying the standard for administrative review, found a rational basis for the Department's interpretation and upheld the directive, denying the petitioners' request for nullification, though a 60-day stay on enforcement was granted.

Radiation SafetyHealth CodeAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewDental PracticesRegulatory CompliancePublic HealthArticle 78 ProceedingsAgency InterpretationDirective Challenge
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01355
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2020

Naula v. Utokilen, LLC

The plaintiff, Victor Naula, commenced an action for personal injuries against Utokilen, LLC, and others. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) found Naula's employer, Specialized Dental Construction, Inc., uninsured and Adapt Construction, LLC, to be the general contractor, awarding Naula workers' compensation benefits. Utokilen and Nancy Marin-Rojas D.D.S., P.C., initiated a third-party action against Specialized Dental for common-law indemnification and contribution. Specialized Dental moved for summary judgment, asserting exclusivity under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, but Utokilen and Marin-Rojas cross-moved, arguing Specialized Dental could not invoke § 11 due to its uninsured status. The Supreme Court granted the cross-motion and denied Specialized Dental's motion. The Appellate Division dismissed Adapt Construction, LLC's appeal as it was not an aggrieved party and affirmed the Supreme Court's order against Specialized Dental Construction, Inc.

Personal InjuriesWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentThird-Party ClaimsIndemnificationContributionGrave InjuryUninsured EmployerAppellate PracticeCollateral Estoppel
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tesillo v. Emergency Physician Associates, Inc.

Manuel Tesillo sued Emergency Physician Associates, Inc. (EPA) for medical malpractice, alleging vicarious liability for the negligence of Dr. William C. Shepherd, an emergency physician at Schuyler Hospital. EPA moved for summary judgment, arguing Dr. Shepherd was an independent contractor. The court found material issues of fact regarding the extent of EPA's control over Dr. Shepherd and its managerial obligations to the Emergency Department, which could establish an employer-employee relationship despite contractual terms. Consequently, the court denied EPA's motion for summary judgment, indicating that the determination of Dr. Shepherd's employment status requires further discovery and possibly a trial.

Medical MalpracticeVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorAgency by EstoppelSummary JudgmentPhysician NegligenceEmergency DepartmentControl TestMaterial Issues of Fact
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gooshaw v. Wing

A disabled adult, relying on SSI and workers' compensation, relocated his mobile home to an undeveloped plot in Cortland County after eviction, lacking essential utilities. Faced with building code violations, he sought emergency assistance from the Cortland County Department of Social Services (DSS) for property improvements. DSS denied his application, recommending alternative housing, a decision affirmed by the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, which reasoned that his needs were foreseeable and not a sudden catastrophe. The court upheld this denial, confirming that the requested capital improvements fell outside the scope of emergency assistance for adults (EAA), which is intended for unforeseen events. It was concluded that the application was correctly assessed under emergency safety net assistance, which permits considering cost-effective alternatives, and the determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Emergency AssistanceDisabled AdultSupplemental Security IncomeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMobile HomeBuilding Code ViolationsCapital ImprovementsSocial Services LawForeseeabilityCatastrophic Emergency
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1993

Kelly v. Bane

This case involves an appeal concerning an amendment to the 'Emergency Home Relief' (EHR) program regulation, 18 NYCRR 370.3 (b) (2), which set an income eligibility cap at 125% of the Federal poverty guidelines. Plaintiffs, low-income families and individuals facing eviction, challenged the amendment's validity and the denial of their applications. While the Supreme Court declared the amendment invalid, the Appellate Division modified this, ruling that the amendment itself was not irrational. However, the Appellate Division found the New York State Department of Social Services' (DSS) interpretation and application of the income test—using prospective income rather than income at the time of the emergency—to be arbitrary and capricious. The court affirmed the remand of the cases, directing re-evaluation of eligibility based on a reasonable computation of income during the emergency period.

Emergency Home ReliefAdministrative LawRegulatory InterpretationPoverty GuidelinesEviction PreventionHomelessnessIncome EligibilityArbitrary and CapriciousDeclaratory JudgmentCPLR Article 78
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 1999

Bulvas v. Dubrowsky

The plaintiffs appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which dismissed their complaint alleging dental malpractice. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, ruling that the plaintiffs' argument regarding insufficient evidence was not preserved for review. It further held that the jury had a rational basis to conclude that no dental malpractice occurred, and the verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, thus dismissing the appeal.

Dental MalpracticeAppellate ReviewJury VerdictSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceAffirmationRockland CountyCivil ProcedureMedical MalpracticeJudgment Dismissal
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Bridget Y.

The dissenting opinion argues that the New York Family Court improperly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction over the subject children, Colleen Y. and Kelly Y. While agreeing that New Mexico was the children's home state and a custody proceeding was already pending there, the dissent contends that the strict criteria for an emergency, requiring 'imminent and substantial danger,' were not met. The dissent points out that the New Mexico court had already assumed jurisdiction, transferred custody to an Ohio family, and issued a protective order against the parents, thereby eliminating any immediate risk of abuse or parental control. The opinion concludes that the Family Court's order creates jurisdictional conflict rather than eliminating it, advocating for the reversal of the orders and dismissal of the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction over the children under 18.

Child CustodyUCCJEAEmergency JurisdictionNeglect ProceedingsInterstate JurisdictionNew Mexico LawNew York Family CourtHome State RuleImminent HarmParental Rights
References
14
Case No. ADJ8191986; ADJ8717495
Regular
Nov 06, 2014

MICHAEL BEN GRAVES vs. MV TRANSPORTATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied applicant Michael Ben Graves's emergency motion for a stay of proceedings. The WCAB found that no proceedings were currently pending before it, making the motion moot regarding appeals board actions. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate a connection between his pending Court of Appeal writ of review and the undecided vexatious litigant issue at the trial level, nor did he show irreparable harm. Consequently, the motion to stay trial-level proceedings was also denied.

Vexatious litigantEmergency motion for stayWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for writ of reviewCourt of AppealPresiding workers' compensation administrative law judgeWCAB Rule 10782Pro se applicantSubstantial prejudiceIrreparable harm
References
0
Case No. MISC. NO. 264
En Banc
Oct 27, 2020

Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vs. State of California

The Appeals Board rescinds its suspension of WCAB Rules 10755, 10756, and 10888, which had previously suspended the dismissal of cases for failure to appear due to the COVID-19 emergency.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCOVID-19State of EmergencyEn BancWCAB RulesSuspensionRescindsDismissalFailure to AppearApplication
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 313 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