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

MacK v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Plaintiff Michael Mack sued The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Dr. Scott Bergman for racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination under 42 U.S.C. sections 1981 and 1983, and New York Executive Law section 296. Mack, an African-American employee, alleged his supervisor, Iannacone, and Dr. Bergman subjected him to racial jokes, disparate treatment, and a hostile work environment. Mack was terminated after failing a drug test and refusing to provide a second urine sample, which he claimed was racially motivated. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing all claims, finding that Mack failed to demonstrate a municipal policy or custom for the Port Authority's liability and did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of wrongful termination or a racially hostile work environment. Additionally, state law claims were dismissed as New York anti-discrimination laws do not apply to the bi-state Port Authority.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Port AuthorityBi-State AgencyMunicipal LiabilityDrug Testing
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Michael B.

This appeal concerns six-year-old Michael B., born with cocaine toxicology and placed in foster care with his foster parents (appellant foster mother and Quintín L.). Following a prior reversal by the Appellate Division, which mandated a best-interests hearing, the Family Court awarded custody to Michael's natural father. The Appellate Division now reverses this decision, finding that the child's best interests are served by awarding custody to the foster parents. The court cited the child's strong bond with his foster parents, the natural father's deficient parenting, lack of emotional support, and potential for emotional and physical harm. The case is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a hearing to determine the father's visitation rights.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyBest Interests of ChildFoster CareChild NeglectPsychological EvaluationFamily LawAppellate ReviewParental FitnessVisitation Rights
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garrick-Aug Associates Store Leasing, Inc. v. Hirschfeld

Plaintiffs Garrick-Aug Associates Store Leasing, Inc. and Charles Aug filed an action against defendants Michael Hirschfeld, The Hirschfeld Companies, Inc., European American Bank (EAB), Paul Arendt, and Mark Anderson, alleging a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO. The plaintiffs claimed that Hirschfeld, with the complicity of EAB employees Arendt and Anderson, misappropriated corporate funds through unauthorized loans and the mishandling of a Treasury Bill, using EAB accounts. Defendants moved to dismiss the RICO claims for failure to state a claim and state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court determined that the mailings cited by plaintiffs were not

Racketeering ActivityRICO ActMail FraudScheme to DefraudMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal JurisdictionRule 12(b)(6)Rule 12(b)(1)Enterprise
References
11
Case No. ADJ11053430; ADJ14397522
Regular
Jun 23, 2025

MICHAEL FISHEL vs. RICK'S LUBE AND COMPLETE AUTO, OAK RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Michael Fishel, an auto mechanic, sustained an injury to his back and other body parts on August 18, 2017, while employed by Rick's Lube and Complete Auto, insured by Oak River Insurance Company. The case involved extensive litigation concerning the necessity of lumbar spine surgery and the waiver of the Utilization Review/Independent Medical Review process, leading to the appointment of Dr. Laura Hatch. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinding and substituting a prior Findings and Award. The Board's decision clarified Dr. Hatch's appointment date and the scope of her evaluation, ultimately upholding the award for the applicant's lumbar spine surgery based on Dr. Hatch's medical opinions.

AOE/COEUR/IMRRegular PhysicianStipulationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code Section 5701Lumbar Spine SurgeryQualified Medical EvaluatorPrimary Treating Physician
References
23
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07702
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2018

Findlater v. Catering by Michael Schick, Inc.

The plaintiff, Christopher Findlater, sued Catering by Michael Schick, Inc., for personal injuries sustained when a food rack fell on him. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions, claiming Findlater was an employee. Findlater cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting defendant's negligence and his status as an independent contractor. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion and granted Findlater's cross-motion, concluding he was an independent contractor. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, finding that the question of Findlater's employment status created a factual dispute that must be resolved by the Workers' Compensation Board. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's determination of negligence against Catering by Michael Schick, Inc. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for new determinations pending the Board's decision.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawIndependent Contractor StatusSummary JudgmentNegligenceAppellate ReviewRemittalEmployment LawFactual DisputeExclusivity Provisions
References
4
Case No. CV-23-1648
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2025

Matter of Ava OO. (Michael NN.)

This is an appeal from a Family Court order adjudicating children neglected and directing the father, Michael NN., to undergo sex offender treatment. Michael NN. and the mother, Leanna MM., consented to a neglect finding after allegations of domestic violence and child sexual abuse by the father. A key condition was for the father to complete a sex offender evaluation. Although the father submitted an evaluation, the Family Court deemed it insufficient as it was not from the named evaluator, was perfunctory, and lacked a crucial section completion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding a sound and substantial basis in the record for not returning the youngest child to the father's care until he obtains a proper sex offender evaluation and engages with recommended treatment. The court also ruled an argument regarding an expired order of protection as moot.

Family LawChild NeglectAppellate ReviewSex Offender EvaluationDispositional OrderBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court Act Article 10Consent OrderMootnessParental Rights
References
13
Case No. ADJ20141319
Regular
Jun 20, 2025

CHARLES FRANKLIN vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

Applicant Charles Franklin sustained a low back injury. Defendant County of San Bernardino filed a petition for reconsideration concerning a scrivener's error in the case number and the geographic reasonableness of the applicant's chosen treating physician, Dr. Nassos. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct the case number from ADJ20141320 to ADJ20141319. However, the Board denied the substantive arguments, affirming the original decision that the defendant failed to demonstrate the unreasonableness of Dr. Nassos's geographic location for treatment by not presenting evidence of a suitable alternative closer to the applicant's residence.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONLABOR CODE SECTION 5909TIMELY ACTIONELECTRONIC ADJUDICATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMTRANSMISSION DATEBUSINESS DAYNOTICE OF TRANSMISSIONREPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONSCRIVENER'S ERROR
References
5
Case No. 2014-2010 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2017

Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v. 21st Century Ins. Co.

The case *Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co.*, decided on September 22, 2017, by the Appellate Term, Second Department, involved an appeal concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff-appellant, Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C., challenged an order from the Civil Court that denied its motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant-respondent's cross-motion for summary judgment and to compel disclosure. The Appellate Term affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment regarding claim denials. The court also affirmed that insurers may use the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services by chiropractors to determine payments for licensed acupuncturists and upheld the defendant's right to discovery due to the plaintiff's untimely objections.

no-fault insurancesummary judgmentacupuncture servicesCPT codesworkers' compensation fee schedulediscovery disputeappellate reviewmedical billinginsurance claimstimely denial
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Evans v. United States

Charles Evans sued the United States of America for negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act and New York's No-Fault Insurance Law, seeking damages for personal injury from a motor vehicle accident and property damage. The defendant moved for summary judgment, and also to strike an affidavit from the plaintiff's chiropractor, Dr. Marie G. Gerard. The Court denied the motion to strike, finding Dr. Gerard to be a treating physician whose affidavit was admissible. However, the Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a "serious injury" under New York law and did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the defendant's causation arguments regarding pre-existing injuries or to explain the gap in treatment. Additionally, the plaintiff's claim for property damage was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of actual damages.

NegligenceFederal Tort Claims ActMotor Vehicle AccidentSerious InjuryNo-Fault Insurance LawSummary JudgmentPre-existing ConditionsMedical EvidenceChiropractic CareCervical Spine Injury
References
84
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Charles BB.

Charles BB. was adjudicated a neglected child and placed with a petitioner in a residential facility. The petitioner sought an extension of placement for up to one year, citing the parents' incarceration and the child's continued need for structured care due to disruptive behavior. Family Court granted the extension, prompting an appeal by the infant's Law Guardian. The appellate court rejected arguments for dismissal based on mootness and a premature notice of appeal, choosing to address the merits. It found Family Court's decision to be supported by evidence, including a clinical update detailing two serious negative incidents involving the infant. The court affirmed the order, concluding that the infant's continued placement was warranted and that less restrictive alternatives were not erroneously overlooked.

Child NeglectExtension of PlacementFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewMootness DoctrineProcedural DefectPremature Notice of AppealResidential PlacementLaw GuardianInfant's Welfare
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,234 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