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
Mar 18, 2016

Friedman v. Allstate Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal from a Civil Court judgment that awarded the plaintiff, Paul Friedman, L.Ac., LMT, the principal sum of $2,160 for assigned first-party no-fault benefits for acupuncture services. The defendant, Allstate Insurance Company, denied the claims based on an independent medical examination (IME) by Dr. Chiu, which concluded that the assignor's injuries had resolved. However, the plaintiff's expert, Dr. Friedman, testified that further treatment was necessary. The Civil Court found the services medically necessary, and the appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the plaintiff met its burden of demonstrating medical necessity.

AcupunctureMedical NecessityNo-Fault BenefitsIMEAssignorProvider ActionCivil Court AppealExpert TestimonyInsurance Denial
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2005

Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP v. Friedman, Khafif & Associates

This case involves a fee dispute between successor law firm Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP, and predecessor firm Friedman, Khafif & Associates, regarding a personal injury action for Pedro Colon. The trial court (IAS court) initially ruled that Friedman, Khafif & Associates forfeited its right to a fee due to alleged misconduct, including failure to file a derivative claim for Mrs. Colon, settling without client consent, and delayed retainer statement filing. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding no evidence of misconduct. It determined that the Friedman Firm's actions were proper, the settlement was conditional, and the retainer statement delay was ministerial. Consequently, the Friedman Firm was awarded a percentage of the initial settlement offer it secured, and Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP was awarded its negotiated share of the enhanced settlement amount.

Fee DisputeAttorney MisconductDischarge for CauseQuantum MeruitContingency FeeLegal EthicsAttorney LienPersonal InjurySettlement AgreementAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MON 271718, MON 271720, MON 271721
Regular
Oct 04, 2007

ANDRES FORBES vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

A lien claimant, Dr. Friedman, sought reconsideration of stipulated workers' compensation awards, arguing a denial of due process when the applicant settled a psychiatric injury claim without his prior notice or opportunity to object. The Board affirmed the stipulated awards, ruling that while Dr. Friedman, as a lien claimant, is entitled to due process, the applicant's stipulations did not dismiss the underlying cases. Consequently, Dr. Friedman can still pursue his lien claim by proving a compensable psychiatric injury, as he now qualifies as a party for that issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantDue processStipulated awardsDismissal with prejudiceCompensable industrial injuryPsychiatric treatmentMandatory settlement conferenceBurden of proofLabor Code section 3208.3
References
8
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07932 [144 AD3d 993]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2016

Markowits v. Friedman

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Supreme Court order in a case involving a dispute over the sale of interests in home health care companies. Plaintiffs, Sara and Alexander Markowits and their companies, alleged breach of contract and fraudulent inducement, claiming the Friedmans concealed pending actions and investigations. The Supreme Court had granted summary judgment to some defendants, dismissed parts of the complaint, and compelled arbitration. The Appellate Division upheld this decision, finding the defendants proved their entitlement to judgment, proposed amendments lacked merit due to no fiduciary duty for fraudulent concealment or aiding and abetting, and the arbitration agreement was valid despite fraud claims related to the broader contract.

Contract DisputeFraudulent InducementSummary JudgmentArbitration AgreementFiduciary DutyAiding and AbettingAppellate ReviewBusiness SaleEmployment LawConfidentiality Agreements
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 1994

In re Friedman

Theodore H. Friedman, an attorney, faced 23 charges of professional misconduct, stemming from his representation in three personal injury cases, including Mowen v Yangming Mar. Transp. Corp. and Estate of Krieger v City of New York. A Special Referee sustained 14 charges, encompassing making false statements under oath, soliciting false testimony, failing to supervise his investigator, and fee splitting with a nonlawyer. The Departmental Disciplinary Committee petitioned for a severe sanction, while Friedman sought dismissal or censure. The First Judicial Department confirmed the sustained charges, disaffirmed the recommended two-year suspension, and ordered Friedman's disbarment, citing a pattern of intentional dishonesty and contempt for the legal process. The disbarment was effective April 22, 1994.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethicsFalse testimonyDisbarmentPerjuryFee splittingWitness tamperingDisciplinary rulesNew York State BarAppellate Division
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1999

Faele v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Rosemary Faele, a nurse at Coney Island Hospital, sustained an eye irritation and received brief examinations from defendants Dr. Barry Eppinger and Dr. An-nan Das in the hospital's emergency room. Her condition worsened, and she was later diagnosed with a severe eye infection by a private ophthalmologist. Though compensated via Workers' Compensation, Faele and her husband initiated a medical malpractice action against the doctors and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint by granting summary judgment to the defendants. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that a sufficient nexus existed between Faele's employment and the alleged malpractice, thereby precluding a common-law malpractice claim and limiting her recourse to Workers' Compensation.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' Compensation PreclusionSummary Judgment AffirmationEmployment-Related InjuryHospital LiabilityEmergency Medical TreatmentAppellate Division DecisionPersonal InjuryDoctor-Patient NexusConey Island Hospital
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2013

A.X.M.S. Corp. v. Friedman

This Memorandum Decision & Order addresses a motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed by A.X.M.S. Corp. (AXMS) against Marvin Friedman, Joyce Friedman, James Dong, and Masterpiece Leather Works, Ltd. The dispute stems from a declared "deadlock" within Masterpiece Leather Works' board of directors concerning two major policy issues: the restructuring of Masterpiece and its Chinese manufacturing partner, Artisan, to address Chinese transfer pricing/tax concerns, and the approval of the annual budget, specifically executive salaries for Friedman and Dong. AXMS sought a declaration that the deadlock was invalid and an injunction to prevent post-deadlock activities. The Court denied the preliminary injunction, finding that AXMS failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the improper declaration of a deadlock on either issue, and also failed to prove irreparable harm, noting that any alleged harm could be remedied by monetary damages. AXMS had previously elected to purchase Friedman and Dong’s interests in Masterpiece for $12 million.

Corporate governanceShareholder disputeBoard deadlockPreliminary injunctionContract interpretationGood faithIrreparable harmCorporate restructuringTransfer pricingTax compliance
References
32
Case No. ADJ2718293 (VNO 0547651)
Regular
Jul 22, 2011

SHERRON BURREL vs. KERN SCHOOLS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, AIM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a WCJ's decision disallowing Dr. Friedman's lien for $3,903.02. The WCAB found that the WCJ erred by relying on a stipulation between the applicant and defendant, to which Dr. Friedman was not a party, rather than making an independent finding on the medical-legal expenses. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision consistent with the WCAB's opinion. This decision was based on the requirement for substantial evidence to support WCJ findings and a properly developed record.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimMedical-Legal ExpensesMedical Treatment ExpensesCompromise and ReleaseThomas FindingAOE/COESubstantial EvidenceOpinion on DecisionReconsideration Granted
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01740 [214 AD3d 590]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2023

Galicia v. Asrar

Lucio Galicia, injured in an accident, received workers' compensation benefits from Tower Insurance Company. Defendant tendered a settlement offer of $25,000. Galicia's attorney, Friedman, was to receive $8,333, and Tower the remainder, but Galicia declined the settlement. Tower intervened to protect its lien. Friedman moved for discharge and a charging lien of $8,333.33, representing his share of the rejected settlement. The Supreme Court granted Friedman's motion for a charging lien. The Appellate Division reversed this order, stating the motion court erred as the sum never attached to a settlement or judgment. The court also noted it was unclear how much work Friedman did or the amount of recovery. Tower was not estopped from opposing Friedman's claim as its position was consistent and it received no benefit from its prior position.

Charging LienWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAttorney FeesEquitable ApportionmentSettlement RejectionIntervenorQuantum MeruitStatutory LienAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. New York Hospital

Plaintiff, a registered nurse, filed an action under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against The New York Hospital, its President Dr. David Skinner, and Assistant Director of Nursing Mr. Jody Sklar, alleging unlawful employment termination due to an alcoholism relapse. The plaintiff objected to a protective order preventing Dr. Skinner's deposition, while defendants sought to dismiss claims against individual defendants. The court granted dismissal against Mr. Sklar but denied it for Dr. Skinner, finding that individuals responsible for discriminatory decisions can be liable under the Act, especially those in positions to accept federal funds. Consequently, the protective order against deposing Dr. Skinner was set aside.

Rehabilitation Actemployment discriminationdisability rightsalcoholismindividual liabilitycorporate responsibilityprotective orderdiscoverymotion to dismiss
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,355 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