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. 534946
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Laura Hickey (John Hickey, dec'd)

Laura Hickey sought workers' compensation death benefits for her husband, John Hickey, who died after collapsing at a construction site. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found the employer waived defenses but later required claimant to provide medical evidence of a causal relationship. Claimant presented testimony from her husband's physician, Dr. Jeffrey Spivak, and coworkers, leading the WCLJ to establish the claim. The carrier challenged Dr. Spivak's opinion, alleging improper ex parte communication, but the Board and Appellate Division found no abuse of discretion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported a causally-related death, considering decedent's pre-existing conditions, the physical demands, and the anxiety of his new job.

References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johns v. AMC Beauty Salon

Petitioner Angelo Johns claimed an unapproved sublease from AMC Beauty Salon for psychic office space at 465 Lexington Avenue, New York. AMC surrendered the entire premises to Sol Goldman Investments, LLC (SGI) on June 2, 2010, representing no other occupants were present. Johns, who paid cash rent to AMC and avoided SGI detection, returned from vacation to find the premises locked. The court found Johns's testimony not fully credible regarding his regular presence and SGI's knowledge of the sublease. SGI credibly testified they were unaware of the sublease and saw no evidence of Johns's occupancy during a walk-through. Concluding Johns purposely hid his occupancy and SGI had no knowledge of it, the court dismissed the petition.

Landlord-TenantSubleaseVoluntary SurrenderOccupancy RightsUnapproved SubleaseCommercial LeasePsychic BusinessEvictionNew York LawCredibility Findings
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re John Lack Associates, LLC

John Lack Associates, LLC, an agency placing waiters and bartenders, was audited by the Department of Labor, which determined these workers were employees, making John Lack liable for unemployment insurance contributions. This determination was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence of John Lack's control over the workers. The court noted that workers could refuse jobs, often worked for other agencies, provided their own equipment, and were supervised and directed by the client at events, who also paid their remuneration through John Lack. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractorUnemployment insurance contributionsAgency controlRight to controlRemittedAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Balodis v. Leavitt

Plaintiff John Balodis sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying him disability insurance benefits. The Commissioner found Balodis capable of work, but Balodis alleges disability since December 2003 due to multiple injuries, including a left hip fracture and advanced degenerative arthritis of the left knee. The court reviewed the ALJ's decision, which primarily relied on opinions from Dr. Skeene and Dr. Montorfano while rejecting Dr. Goldman's opinion, who was Balodis's treating physician. The court found that the ALJ failed to properly apply the "treating physician rule" by not providing sufficient reasons for not giving controlling weight to Dr. Goldman's opinions, especially considering the potential deterioration of Balodis's condition over time. Consequently, the court denied the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanded the case for further proceedings to reconsider Dr. Goldman's opinion and the assessment of Balodis's credibility.

Social Security DisabilityDisability Insurance BenefitsTreating Physician RuleALJ ErrorRemand for ReconsiderationMedical Evidence EvaluationResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkDegenerative Joint DiseaseLeft Hip Fracture
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2006

In re John T.

Holliswood Care Center appealed an order awarding attorneys' fees against it in a guardianship proceeding for John T. The Supreme Court had initially found John T. competent but awarded fees to the petitioner, temporary guardian, and Mental Hygiene Legal Service, citing Holliswood's "reprehensible actions" in detaining Mr. T. Holliswood argued it was not given notice that the guardianship hearing would determine attorney's fees against it and was not afforded an opportunity to present evidence regarding its actions, which it claimed were based on safety concerns, not Mr. T.'s competency. The appellate court reversed the order, holding that the Supreme Court improperly proceeded with the hearing and improvidently awarded attorneys' fees without proper notice and opportunity to be heard for Holliswood. Furthermore, the court found that the award of attorneys' fees against Holliswood was not authorized by Mental Hygiene Law article 81 nor justified under common law exceptions.

GuardianshipAttorneys' FeesMental Hygiene LawIncapacitated PersonAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessNotice RequirementNursing Home DetentionElderly CareCompetency Evaluation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brian v. Johns

Petitioner Carol Brian initiated an action against respondent Frank T. Johns to establish paternity for her child, Sara, born March 4, 1973, and to secure child support. A court-ordered blood grouping test, conducted at the respondent's expense following an order on January 2, 1974, excluded Mr. Johns as the father. Unsatisfied with these results, the petitioner requested a second blood test, but the court denied this motion after reconsideration, citing respondent's opposition and the lack of statutory authority in Section 532 of the Family Court Act for ordering a second test over objection. The court ruled that the trial should proceed, requiring the respondent to present the performing doctor as a witness to explain the test's basis and procedure, allowing the petitioner to question its accuracy. The decision acknowledged a potential margin of error in such tests and affirmed the petitioner's opportunity to rebut the blood test evidence, as it is not the sole determinant of paternity.

paternityblood testFamily Court Actevidencetrialmotion deniedchild supportmedical examination accuracyserologyhemotology
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guarino v. St. John Fisher College

Plaintiff Lucia Guarino, a faculty member at St. John Fisher College, sued the college for Title VII and New York employment discrimination, alleging a hostile work environment and retaliation from her former supervisor, Dr. Carol Freeman, and Dr. Freeman's husband. Plaintiff described Dr. Freeman's behavior as 'bizarre' and 'needy' but explicitly denied it was romantic or sexual, and stated she was not treated badly because she was a woman. The court found no evidence to support a hostile work environment claim based on sex discrimination, as the incidents were facially neutral and not shown to be sex-based. The retaliation claim also failed because the alleged retaliatory conduct occurred before she formally complained of discrimination, and her actions (transferring to a new position, being granted tenure) did not constitute materially adverse actions. Therefore, the Court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNew York Executive LawFaculty MemberSupervisor HarassmentGender Discrimination
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Johns-Manville Corp. (In Re Johns-Manville Corp.)

This case involves motions by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Boston and Maine Corporation (B&M) for mandatory withdrawal of reference from the Bankruptcy Court. The plaintiffs sought rulings that their claims against Johns-Manville Corporation, related to asbestos waste cleanup costs under CERCLA, were not barred by the automatic bankruptcy stay. The District Court examined whether the resolution of these adversary proceedings required substantial and material consideration of both the Bankruptcy Code (Title 11) and other federal laws, specifically CERCLA. Finding that significant interpretation of both federal statutes was necessary to determine when the claims arose and their interaction with the automatic stay, the court granted the motions.

BankruptcyWithdrawal of ReferenceCERCLAAutomatic StayEnvironmental LawFederal JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationContributionIndemnificationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. ADJ3093533 (MON 259690) ADJ676332 (MON 257523)
Regular
May 15, 2009

PEARLENE POWELL vs. SO. CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL CARE PROGRAM; ST. JOHN'S HEALTH CENTER, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board denied Kaiser's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's permanent disability was 100% and not subject to apportionment to St. John's employment. St. John's petition for reconsideration was granted in part to correct a procedural error. The Board amended the prior decision to reinstate the applicant's January 11, 2005 Amended Findings, Award and Order, confirming the prior findings.

ApportionmentAgreed Medical ExaminerSubstantial EvidencePermanent DisabilityReconsiderationPetitionFindings and OrderAmended FindingsAwardOrder
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gorman v. Rensselaer County

Plaintiff John Gorman commenced an action alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims against Rensselaer County, its officials (County Defendants), and Dr. William McIntyre and Public Safety Psychology PLLC (PSP). The County Defendants and PSP filed motions to dismiss. The court denied as moot the motions to dismiss filed by the County Defendants and PSP's first motion, as an amended complaint superseded the original. However, PSP's second motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted, leading to the dismissal of all claims against Dr. McIntyre and PSP. The court found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for negligent misrepresentation due to a lack of direct reliance, and PSP was not a state actor for § 1983 claims. Additionally, claims against PSP under New York Civil Service Law § 75-b and New York Labor Law § 740 were dismissed because PSP was not Plaintiff's employer.

Civil Rights ViolationsSection 1983Negligent MisrepresentationRetaliation ClaimsMotion to DismissState Actor DoctrineIndependent Medical ExaminationEmployment LawPsychological EvaluationPublic Employer Liability
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 2,174 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