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. ADJ8015424; ADJ8102669
Regular
Jul 01, 2025

ESPERANZA SANCHEZ vs. MCDONALD'S, USF&G

Applicant Esperanza Sanchez sought reconsideration of an April 7, 2025 Findings and Award (F&A) which determined her permanent total disability was subject to apportionment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition, concluding that the medical apportionment analyses provided by Dr. Jeffrey Hirsch and Dr. Ezekiel Fink were incomplete as they lacked a detailed explanation for how the apportionment percentages were derived. Consequently, the WCAB amended the F&A to find that the applicant sustained 100 percent permanent and total disability, without a legal basis for apportionment. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings regarding attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardindustrial injuryheartcirculatory systembrain/strokediabetespermanent total disabilityapportionment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jeffrey D.

Petitioner filed a petition under Family Court Act article 10, alleging child abuse and neglect of respondents' three-month-old son, Jeffrey. Initial allegations involved scalding and bruises, later supplemented with claims of numerous fractured ribs following further medical examinations. The Family Court found no abuse but adjudicated the child neglected. The mother appealed, but the Appellate Court rejected the mootness argument, citing the permanent stigma of a neglect adjudication. Based on expert medical testimony from Dr. Louise Godine, who identified nine fractured ribs indicative of forceful squeezing and determined the injuries predated the scalding, the Appellate Court affirmed the Family Court's finding. The court noted the parents' failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the injuries, allowing for strong adverse inferences.

Child Neglect AdjudicationFamily Court Act Article 10Infant Rib FracturesScalding InjuriesMedical Expert TestimonyPreponderance of Evidence StandardMootness Doctrine ApplicationParental Explanations DiscreditedAdverse InferencesAppellate Affirmation
References
9
Case No. 535356
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Jeffrey Christie

Claimant Jeffrey Christie, a tour manager for Universal Music Group (doing business as Def Jam Records), sustained injuries in August 2018 when he was assaulted and shot in Missouri. His workers' compensation claim, alleging injury to his right leg and posttraumatic stress disorder, was controverted by the employer and its carrier, who argued he was an independent contractor. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found Christie to be an employee and that prima facie medical evidence existed for work-related injuries. The carrier's subsequent application for review by the Workers' Compensation Board was denied for failing to specify an objection to the WCLJ's decision, as required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b). The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the Board's discretion to deny review for non-compliance, noting that a recently enacted law, Workers' Compensation Law § 23-a, which would provide leniency for application defects, was not yet effective at the time of the carrier's application.

Workers' Compensation BoardApplication for ReviewProcedural ComplianceAppellate Division Third DepartmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent Contractor StatusWCLJ Decision ReviewForm RB-89 RequirementsRegulatory Non-complianceStatutory Effective Date
References
13
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08419 [155 AD3d 1470]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2017

Matter of Paige J. (Jeffrey K.)

This case involves an appeal by Jeffrey K. (respondent father) from an order of the Family Court of Tompkins County, which adjudicated his two children as permanently neglected and terminated his parental rights. The Tompkins County Department of Social Services (petitioner) initiated the proceeding after the father failed to comply with a suspended judgment and adequately plan for the children's future, primarily due to his continued cohabitation with the children's mother, who had an uncontrolled drug addiction. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that the petitioner made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, and that the father, despite being able, failed to adequately plan for the children's future by not establishing a safe, sober, and stable home free from the mother's illicit drug use.

Parental RightsPermanent NeglectChild WelfareSocial Services LawAppellate ReviewFamily CourtDrug AddictionReunification EffortsSuspended JudgmentChild Protective Services
References
0
Case No. CA 11-00457, CLAIM NO. 111910
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2011

DIPALMA, JEFFREY v. STATE OF NEW YORK

Claimant Jeffrey DiPalma sought damages for injuries sustained when a large skid box containing concrete debris fell from a forklift and struck him. The Court of Claims found the State of New York 100% liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) following the liability portion of a bifurcated trial. The defendant appealed, arguing the falsus in uno doctrine should have been applied to discredit the claimant's testimony due to alleged inconsistencies, and that Labor Law § 240 (1) was inapplicable due to a de minimis height differential. The Appellate Division rejected these contentions, affirming the lower court's judgment. The court noted the falsus in uno doctrine is not mandatory and that the elevation differential, though small, was significant considering the object's weight and potential harm. Liability under Labor Law § 241 (6) was also upheld, based on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (b) regarding debris handling.

Personal InjuryLabor LawForklift AccidentConstruction SafetyFalsus in Uno DoctrineWitness CredibilityElevation DifferentialGravity-Related AccidentDebris HandlingAppellate Review
References
10
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

MHM Sponsors Co. v. Hirsch

Petitioner, Ogdan CAP Properties LLC, initiated a holdover proceeding against respondent, Paulette Hirsch, seeking possession of her apartment. The petitioner claimed Hirsch unreasonably refused access for necessary repairs to the wood flooring, a repair mandated by a housing code violation. Hirsch defended her refusal by citing severe allergies to the glue used for floor installation, fearing adverse health effects. The court, applying an objective standard, determined that Hirsch's refusal was unreasonable. It concluded that a prudent individual would accept a temporary health risk to mitigate a continuous safety hazard and could have avoided the risk by vacating the premises during repairs. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner a judgment of possession.

holdover proceedingunreasonable refusalaccess for repairshousing code violationlandlord-tenantallergic reactionglue fumesobjective standardjudgment of possessiontenant rights
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hirsch v. Mastroianni

In a wrongful death action, the plaintiff, Hirsch's widow, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, that granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The lower court dismissed the complaint, ruling the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (subd 6), and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to dismiss this affirmative defense. The factual background involved co-employees Hirsch and Di Stefano, where Di Stefano shot Hirsch to death and then committed suicide. The appellate court reversed the order, finding that Di Stefano was not acting within the scope of his employment, thus making the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision inapplicable. Citing Maines v Cronomer Val. Fire Dept., the court clarified that the law does not bar tort actions against co-employees for acts outside the scope of employment or for intentional torts, and an insane person is liable for their torts.

Wrongful DeathWorkers' Compensation LawCo-employee LiabilityScope of EmploymentIntentional TortNegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewExclusive RemedyCPLR 3211
References
4
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rafiy v. Nassau County Medical Center

Dr. M. Pierre Rafiy and Dr. Philip Rafiy (the Rafiys) initiated a civil action against Nassau County Medical Center, Nassau County, Dr. Bruce Meinhard, and Dr. Anthony Angelo. Their claims, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Sherman Act, included deprivation of hospital privileges without due process, racial discrimination, and retaliation for exercising free speech rights. The Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the revoked assignments were not protected property interests and the Rafiys failed to exhaust state remedies. They also contended that the Rafiys' speech was not protected under the First Amendment and that evidence for discrimination was lacking. The court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all counts, concluding that no constitutional violations occurred and that the Rafiys' antitrust claim had been withdrawn.

Civil RightsDue ProcessFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionRacial DiscriminationRetaliationHospital PrivilegesSummary JudgmentSherman ActAntitrust
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 1,440 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