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

Hason v. Department of Health

The petitioner, a physician, sought review of a determination by the Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct (ARB) which suspended his medical license. The ARB's decision was based on a prior California Board finding that the petitioner's ability to practice medicine was impaired by mental illness (bipolar affective disorder and narcissistic personality disorder). The court upheld the ARB's finding of professional misconduct, applying collateral estoppel to the California determination. However, the court found the penalty imposed by the ARB—a one-year suspension "and thereafter until such time as [petitioner] can demonstrate his fitness to practice medicine"—was not authorized by Public Health Law § 230-a. Consequently, the court modified the determination by annulling the penalty and remitted the matter to the ARB for the imposition of a statutorily appropriate penalty.

Medical License SuspensionProfessional MisconductPsychiatric ImpairmentMental IllnessBipolar Affective DisorderNarcissistic Personality DisorderCollateral EstoppelArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative ReviewPenalty Annulment
References
26
Case No. 570244/13
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2016

People v. Sylvester (Sean)

This case involves consolidated criminal prosecutions where defendant Sean Sylvester appealed from two judgments of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County, rendered March 6, 2013, convicting him of disorderly conduct and trespass. The Appellate Term, First Department, affirmed the judgments of conviction. The court found that the accusatory instruments were not jurisdictionally defective, sufficiently alleging that the defendant had no legitimate purpose in a store, refused to leave when asked by workers, and began fighting, thereby establishing reasonable cause for disorderly conduct and trespass. The public dimension of the disorderly conduct was inferable from the commercial establishment setting, and the "remains unlawfully" element of trespass was established by allegations that the defendant defied a lawful order to leave.

Criminal LawDisorderly ConductTrespassAppellate ReviewJurisdictional DefectAccusatory InstrumentSufficiency of EvidencePublic DisorderUnlawful EntryCriminal Procedure
References
7
Case No. 03-00-00398-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2001

Burnet County Sheriff's Department and Burnet County, Texas v. Zarina Carlisle

Zarina Carlisle, a senior correctional officer, sued Burnet County Sheriff's Department and Burnet County for wrongful termination under the Texas Whistleblower Act, alleging retaliation for reporting unprofessional conduct by her supervisor, Captain Wendell Gilmore. Carlisle reported Gilmore's cursing and 'bad-mouthing' to Sheriff Joe Pollack, believing it violated county personnel policies and constituted disorderly conduct under the Texas Penal Code. Burnet County filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that Carlisle failed to allege a 'violation of law' sufficient to waive sovereign immunity. The appellate court agreed, finding that internal personnel policies do not constitute a 'law' under the Whistleblower Act unless promulgated pursuant to a statute or ordinance, which was not established. Furthermore, Carlisle's allegations did not meet the elements for disorderly conduct. The court concluded that Carlisle failed to plead a cause of action sufficient to invoke the Act's waiver of sovereign immunity, reversing the district court's denial of Burnet County's plea to the jurisdiction.

Wrongful TerminationWhistleblower ActSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionPublic EmployeeViolation of LawPersonnel PolicyDisorderly ConductTexas Court of AppealsAbuse of Authority
References
43
Case No. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cablevision Systems Corp. v. Communications Workers of America District 1

The lawsuit, filed by Cablevision Systems against Communications Workers of America District 1 (CWA) and individual defendants, sought to address alleged harassment, trespass, stalking, disorderly conduct, and tortious interference with business relations. These claims arose from the defendants' purported disruption of two private Cablevision events in May 2013, a shareholder meeting and an investors' conference. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion, ruling that a corporate entity like Cablevision Systems cannot be considered a "person" for the purpose of bringing statutory claims under the Penal Law sections cited (harassment, stalking, disorderly conduct). Furthermore, the court found the claims for common-law trespass and tortious interference insufficient due to the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate that individual union members authorized or ratified the alleged unlawful actions. Consequently, the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed entirely.

Labor DisputeUnion HarassmentCorporate EventsTrespassStalkingDisorderly ConductTortious InterferenceMotion to DismissPrivate Right of ActionPenal Law Interpretation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of John Z.

This case involves an appeal from an order recommitting the respondent to petitioner's custody due to a dangerous mental disorder. The respondent, with a history of multiple killings and a prior finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, had his parole revoked after exhibiting aggressive and threatening behavior upon conditional release. The Supreme Court determined he suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder with narcissistic and paranoid features, which was deemed a dangerous mental disorder justifying civil confinement under CPL 330.20. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the argument that the diagnosis was legally insufficient and upholding the finding of current dangerousness based on expert testimony, the respondent's history of violence, and his lack of insight into his condition.

dangerous mental disordercivil confinementantisocial personality disordernarcissistic featuresparanoid featuresCPL 330.20recommitmentmental illnessparole revocationexpert testimony
References
10
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05929
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2018

Matter of Pelsinger

The Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District moved to confirm a Special Referee's report which sustained 13 charges of professional misconduct against attorney Kenneth S. Pelsinger. The charges included dishonesty, fraud, misappropriation of client funds, and failure to cooperate with investigations. Pelsinger sought mitigation due to untreated major depressive disorder and attention deficit disorder, proposing public censure or a monitoring program. The Appellate Division, Second Department, found that Pelsinger failed to establish a causal link between his disorders and the misconduct, noting his extensive disciplinary history, including a prior three-year suspension for similar offenses. The court determined that Pelsinger's conduct was intentional and deceptive, and ordered his immediate disbarment.

Attorney MisconductDisbarmentProfessional ResponsibilityMisappropriation of FundsFraudFailure to CooperateDisciplinary HistoryMitigating FactorsGrievance CommitteeDefault Judgment
References
6
Case No. Rutherford Circuit No. 31613; Appeal No. 01A01-9709-CV-00531
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 1998

Allen E. Hasty, Judy Darlene Hasty v. Thomas R. Throneberry, Ind., D/B/A Throneberry Properties and Sharon Clutter

Plaintiffs Allen E. Hasty and Judy Darlene Hasty sued Thomas R. Throneberry for wrongful eviction, outrageous conduct, and defamation. Hasty, a maintenance worker for Throneberry, was fired and subsequently evicted from an apartment provided as part of his compensation. Throneberry terminated electricity and changed locks, forcing Hasty out. Hasty claimed these actions, combined with a prior work-related car accident, caused Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and major depression, for which he had already received worker's compensation benefits. The trial court dismissed defamation and outrageous conduct claims but allowed the wrongful eviction claim and later permitted amendment to include intentional infliction of emotional distress. A jury awarded Hasty $500 for property loss and $10,000 for mental damages, attributing 55% of the latter to Throneberry's actions, resulting in a total judgment of $6,000. Throneberry appealed, arguing the relationship was employer-employee, not landlord-tenant, precluding wrongful eviction, and that PTSD recovery was barred by worker's compensation exclusivity and lack of medical certainty. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that even if it was an employer-employee relationship, Throneberry had a duty to refrain from intentional, willful, or wanton conduct causing injury or loss, which Hasty's complaint alleged and the jury found. The court also ruled that worker's compensation exclusivity does not apply if the defendant intended to cause injury, which was alleged. Finally, Dr. Singh's testimony was found sufficient regarding causation, and apportionment of damages was a jury matter.

Wrongful EvictionIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployer-Employee RelationshipLandlord-Tenant DisputeWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityProximate CausationMedical Expert TestimonyPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderMajor DepressionComparative Fault
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rentner v. Sigman

This case concerns a manufacturer's application to continue a temporary injunction against a trade union due to an ongoing strike and associated picketing. The dispute arose from disagreements over productivity and employee discharges, leading to union members picketing the manufacturer's facility in the Garment Center Capitol. While acknowledging the legality of strikes and peaceful picketing, the court found evidence of large numbers of picketers causing disorderly conduct, obstructing entrances, and interfering with the manufacturer's business and non-union employees. Judge Bijur concluded that the mass picketing constituted an unjust invasion of the plaintiff's rights. Consequently, the court granted a limited injunction, setting specific numerical limits for pickets at each entrance of the building to balance union's right to persuasion with plaintiff's right to conduct business freely.

injunctionlabor disputetrade unionpicketingstrikeemployer rightsemployee rightspeaceful persuasiondisorderly conducttemporary restraining order
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 1994

Wilbur O. v. Christina P.

This case involves appeals from Family Court orders granting Wilbur O. sole legal custody of his children, William and Jessica O., and adjudicating them as neglected by their mother, Christina P., and stepfather, Allan P. Following their divorce, Christina P. and Allan P., active Jehovah\'s Witnesses, raised the children and began discarding items from Wilbur\'s visits, believing them to be demon-possessed. Christina P. was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder and experienced flashbacks of alleged satanic ritualistic abuse, eventually implicating Wilbur. The parents unilaterally terminated Wilbur\'s visitation, leading to the children\'s severe depression. The children, influenced by their parents, began recounting detailed, uncorroborated "memories" of satanic abuse by Wilbur. After intervention by the Department of Social Services (DSS), the children recanted their allegations, attributing them to suggestions from Christina P. and Allan P. A court-ordered psychological report diagnosed Christina P. with a possible psychotic disorder and described a "Folie á Deux" shared delusion with the children. The appeals court affirmed the Family Court\'s findings of neglect and the change of custody to Wilbur O., concluding that the children\'s mental and emotional health was impaired by Christina P. and Allan P.\'s conduct.

Child Custody DisputeChild NeglectParental AlienationFalse Allegations of AbuseSatanic Ritual Abuse AllegationsPosttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)Shared Delusion (Folie á Deux)Family Court ActAppellate DecisionPsychological Evaluation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,403 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