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

Russell v. Chase Bank USA, NA (In Re Russell)

Nigel Anthony Russell initiated an adversary proceeding against Chase Bank USA, N.A., alleging violations of a bankruptcy discharge injunction and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, along with a claim for defamation. Russell contended that Chase intentionally failed to update his credit reports to reflect a discharged debt, thereby attempting to coerce payment. Chase filed a motion to dismiss all claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss the defamation claim due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding it not "related to" the bankruptcy estate. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the discharge injunction violation claim, ruling that a deliberate refusal to correct credit information could be considered an act to collect a discharged debt, and further noted that punitive damages might be warranted if willful misconduct is proven.

BankruptcyDischarge InjunctionCredit ReportFair Credit Reporting ActDefamationMotion to DismissPunitive DamagesCivil ContemptChapter 7Debt Collection
References
35
Case No. ADJ3970584
Regular
Dec 09, 2008

RUSSELL DEAN NELSON vs. RENAISSANCE HOTEL, MARIOTT HOT SPRINGS

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ's order compelling payment for an independent medical examiner. The Board found the WCJ abused discretion by bypassing the preferred procedure of seeking clarification from the existing Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), Dr. Patzakis. The case is returned to the trial level for the WCJ and parties to direct specific questions to Dr. Patzakis before considering a new medical examiner.

RemovalWCJLabor Code Section 5701Due ProcessIndustrial InjuryFindings and AwardReconsiderationDisarrayAdjudicationApportionment
References
1
Case No. ADJ3970584 (LAO 0836632)
Regular
Nov 04, 2011

RUSSELL NELSON vs. RENAISSANCE HOLLYWOOD HOTEL

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, reversing an earlier WCJ order that denied a second deposition of the applicant. This decision allows the defendant to depose the applicant and the appointed physician, Dr. Sadoff, regarding subsequent employment and industrial injury. The Board found good cause for the second deposition, as new information may be relevant to permanent disability and apportionment. The case was taken off calendar pending these depositions, but the request for reassignment of the WCJ was denied.

Petition for RemovalArmin M. SadoffM.D.Regular PhysicianSubsequent EmploymentSubsequent Industrial InjurySecond DepositionCompelling AttendanceCross-examinationPermanent Disability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 1997

In re Russell B.

Respondent David B. was charged with sexual abuse of his son Russell, leading to a proceeding under Family Court Act article 10 by the petitioner. Evidence included Russell's detailed statements of abuse and David B.'s guilty plea to sexual abuse in the second degree. Family Court adjudicated Russell as sexually abused and found derivative neglect for his sisters, Kayla and Brittany. David B. appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, but the appellate court affirmed the decision. The court found Russell's statements sufficiently corroborated by David B.'s conviction.

Sexual abuseChild neglectFamily CourtCorroborationPlea of guiltyDerivative findingsFamily Court Act Article 10Penal LawAppellate DivisionChild testimony
References
3
Case No. 17-CV-667-EAW
Regular Panel Decision

Nelson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Plaintiff Jennifer Marie Nelson sought judicial review of a denial of disability insurance benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security. The U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in assessing Plaintiff's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) by failing to properly evaluate opinion evidence from a therapist and by substituting her own lay judgment for medical opinion. The ALJ also failed to develop the record by obtaining sufficient medical evidence relevant to the period of disability. The court granted Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings, instructing the ALJ to reconsider the therapist's opinion and fully explain the basis for any RFC assessment.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsALJ ErrorResidual Functional CapacityMedical Opinion EvidenceFunctional LimitationsRemandMental ImpairmentsConsultative ExaminationDistrict Court Review
References
16
Case No. 534672
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Delon Nelson

The claimant, Delon A. Nelson, appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. The case involved an established claim for work-related injuries, for which the self-insured employer, NYC Health & Hospital Corp., continued to pay claimant's wages during a period of disability. The employer sought reimbursement for these wages against a schedule loss of use award previously made to the claimant. The claimant argued that the employer had waived its right to reimbursement by not requesting it before the award was made or by failing to object to a proposed decision. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled in favor of the employer, finding its reimbursement request timely, and denied claimant's application for reconsideration. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the employer's earlier filing of a C-669 form constituted a timely request for reimbursement under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a), and denying reimbursement would result in unjust enrichment for the claimant.

Wage ReimbursementWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSchedule Loss of UseAdvance PaymentsEmployer Reimbursement ClaimTimeliness of ClaimUnjust EnrichmentAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionsPermanent Partial Disability
References
13
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02162
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

Matter of Ryba v. Russell

Claimant Paul Ryba filed for workers' compensation benefits after falling off a roof while working for Buczkowski Builders LLC, a subcontractor of Ryan E. Russell, doing business as Ryan's Home Improvements (RHI). Neither Buczkowski nor RHI had workers' compensation insurance. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found Buczkowski to be the employer but held RHI liable under Workers' Compensation Law § 56 due to lack of insurance. RHI appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board, arguing § 56 was inapplicable to uninsured general contractors. The Board denied RHI's application for review, finding it incomplete for failing to fully answer question 13 on the RB-89 application. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying review due to RHI's non-compliance with the application requirements, and thus, the merits of RHI's appeal were not considered.

Uninsured EmployerGeneral Contractor LiabilityAppellate ReviewAdministrative ProcedureProcedural Non-ComplianceApplication for Review DenialStatutory InterpretationThird DepartmentRB-89 ApplicationSubcontractor Liability
References
6
Case No. 154970/19 | Appeal No. 5599 | Case No. 2024-06451
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2026

Russell v. Lenox Hill Hosp.

Plaintiff James Russell, an employee of a delivery service, sustained injuries while unloading a blood irradiator machine at Lenox Hill Hospital, falling off a truck after the machine rolled towards him. The Supreme Court had denied Lenox Hill Hospital's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 200 claims and common-law negligence, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability, and denied Rad Source Technologies' motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed these decisions, dismissing both the complaint against Lenox Hill Hospital and the third-party complaint. The court ruled that plaintiff was not a covered worker under Labor Law § 240(1) as the electrical work was unrelated to his activity and completed before delivery. Furthermore, Lenox Hill Hospital did not supervise or control plaintiff's work, negating Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence liability. The third-party complaint was also dismissed, as Rad Source cannot be held liable for the negligence of an independent contractor, and delivery work is not considered inherently dangerous.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentIndependent ContractorDelivery ServicesPremises LiabilityLoading Dock InjuryUnloading Equipment
References
7
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. 06-CV-0116
Regular Panel Decision

Nelson v. Brown

The petitioner, Hassan Nelson, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking to vacate his state court conviction for armed robbery. He alleged ineffective assistance of counsel due to his trial attorney's failure to request a remedy for lost exculpatory evidence (eyewitness notes) and the improper admission of a prejudicial arrest photograph. The court found counsel's inaction regarding the Rosario violation unreasonable and prejudicial, undermining the prosecution's weak, eyewitness-dependent case. Additionally, the admission of an irrelevant and highly prejudicial 1993 mug shot, which led jurors to infer a prior criminal record, violated Nelson's right to a fair trial. Consequently, the court GRANTED Nelson's petition, VACATED his conviction, and ordered his release or a new trial within thirty days.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselRosario ViolationEyewitness IdentificationPrejudicial EvidenceMug Shot AdmissibilityDue ProcessFair TrialState Court ConvictionFederal Habeas Review
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 1,432 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