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

Medlin v. Rome Strip Steel Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Alexander Medlin sued Rome Strip Steel Co., Inc. (RSS) and several individuals for disability discrimination under the ADA and New York State Human Rights Law, and for improper disclosure of confidential medical information. Medlin, a Hot Roll Slitter Operator, suffered a non-work-related back injury and requested light duty or accommodations upon his return, which RSS denied after a functional capacity evaluation (FCE). The EEOC found probable discrimination by RSS regarding accommodation denial and confidentiality breaches. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contesting Medlin's disability status, RSS's duty to provide light duty, and the impropriety of medical information disclosure. The court denied RSS's motion for summary judgment on the ADA claims, citing unresolved factual disputes concerning Medlin's perceived disability, RSS's failure in the interactive accommodation process, and the alleged improper disclosure. However, the ADA claims against individual defendants Kirk Hinman, Roger Pratt, and Walter Race were dismissed, as were claims against Impact and Cindy Bush, along with Title VII and ADEA claims.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActReasonable AccommodationFunctional Capacity EvaluationConfidential Medical InformationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPerceived DisabilityInteractive ProcessNew York State Human Rights Law
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03553 [207 AD3d 117]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2022

Sullivan v. New York State Joint Commn. on Pub. Ethics

Katherine C. Sullivan and Kat Sullivan LLC challenged the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE) regarding the application of the Lobbying Act to their advocacy efforts for the Child Victims Act. Plaintiffs asserted the Act was unconstitutional on its face due to First Amendment violations, vagueness, and overbreadth, and also challenged its constitutionality as applied to their activities, alongside the validity of JCOPE's regulations. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the facial challenges to the Lobbying Act, declaring it constitutional, and also upheld the dismissal of the challenge to JCOPE's regulations. However, the court reversed the Supreme Court's dismissal of the 'as-applied' challenges, concluding that a justiciable and ripe controversy existed. This allows for judicial review of JCOPE's interpretation and enforcement against plaintiffs' past and threatened future advocacy.

Lobbying ActFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechOverbreadth DoctrineVagueness DoctrineJusticiabilityRipenessDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewChild Victims Act
References
77
Case No. SFO 0471491
Regular
May 17, 2008

Leonard Desmuke vs. Marine Terminals Corp., Majestic Insurance Company

The Appeals Board granted removal, reversing the WCJ's denial of attorney Grimes' petition to be relieved as counsel. The Board found that Grimes had established sufficient cause due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, stemming from the applicant's withdrawal from a settlement and ongoing disputes, despite the applicant's objections. The Board emphasized that the applicant's alleged unwarranted claim or discovery issues could not be substantiated without violating ethical duties of confidentiality.

Petition for RemovalPetition to Be Relieved as CounselAttorney-Client Relationship BreakdownUnwarranted ClaimEthical Duty of ConfidentialityAttorney of RecordWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeMandatory Settlement ConferenceIn Camera Hearing
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

WTC Captive Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

This opinion addresses the second phase of a dispute between the City's 9/11 clean-up insurance carriers, focusing on which carriers must defend the City and its contractors against lawsuits from injured clean-up workers. Plaintiff WTC Captive Insurance Company, funded by FEMA, sought a declaration that defendant London Insurers owed a duty to defend. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted WTC Captive's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the London Insurers have an ongoing duty to defend the City and its contractors. The court found that the pollution exclusion clause in the London Insurers' policies did not excuse this duty, as the underlying claims were based on negligent workplace safety rather than direct pollution causation. Additionally, the London Insurers' defense of inadequate notice was rejected, as timely notice was deemed to have been provided.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendPollution ExclusionWorld Trade Center Litigation9/11 Clean-upExcess Insurance PolicyWorkplace Safety NegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment RulingNotice of Claims
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mirrer v. Hevesi

The petitioner, a police sergeant for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, sought accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits after slipping from a fire truck due to foam on his shoes. The respondent Comptroller denied his applications, finding that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Retirement and Social Security Law, as slipping on foam was an inherent risk of his job duties, and that he was not permanently incapacitated from performing his duties. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, citing substantial evidence supporting both findings, including the resolution of conflicting expert medical opinions regarding permanent disability. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityPerformance of Duty DisabilityPolice SergeantFirefighting OperationsLa Guardia AirportSlip and FallInherent Risk of EmploymentCervical Spine InjuryExpert Medical Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lightman v. Flaum

Plaintiff sued Rabbis Flaum and Weinberger for breach of clergy-penitent privilege, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation, alleging they disclosed confidential communications made during spiritual counseling. The defendants moved to dismiss, claiming no private cause of action exists for breach of the privilege, and that their disclosures were compelled by Jewish law or made in the presence of third parties, thus waiving confidentiality. The court ruled that a cause of action for breach of the fiduciary duty of confidentiality does exist, rejecting the argument that the First Amendment provides an absolute defense where tortious conduct is involved and can be determined by neutral principles of law. The court found the disclosure potentially actionable and denied dismissal for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but dismissed the defamation claim due to absolute judicial privilege. Factual issues regarding waiver of privilege remain for trial.

Clergy-Penitent PrivilegeFiduciary DutyConfidentiality BreachIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationFirst AmendmentReligious FreedomSummary JudgmentTort LiabilityRabbinical Counseling
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Faraino v. Centennial Insurance

This case addresses whether an insurer, having received a loan receipt from its insured, has a duty of good faith beyond mere payment. The court holds that such a duty is created by equity, implied contractual covenants, and the conflict of interest arising from the insurer's exclusive control over the insured's claims. The plaintiff boat owner alleged the insurers failed to provide independent counsel, policy information, or investigation results, potentially breaching this obligation. Consequently, the insurers' motion for summary judgment and dismissal was denied, affirming their proper joinder as defendants. The court also raises the possibility that the insurers' conduct could constitute a waiver of their subrogation rights.

Good Faith DutyInsurer ObligationsLoan ReceiptSubrogation RightsConflict of InterestInsurance Contract LawSummary Judgment DenialAttorney FeesEquitable PrinciplesContractual Subrogation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Molloy v. DiNapoli

The petitioner, a correction officer, sought performance of duty disability retirement benefits after sustaining multiple left shoulder injuries across several work-related incidents. While the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System conceded permanent disability, the respondent Comptroller denied the application, concluding that the initial June 6, 2008 incident was not the proximate cause of the disability. Conflicting medical evidence was presented, with orthopedic surgeon Andrew Beharrie linking the disability to the 2008 incident, while independent medical examiner Bradley Wiener attributed the need for surgical intervention to subsequent incidents in 2009 and 2010. The Hearing Officer and Comptroller credited Wiener's opinion, noting the lack of immediate medical treatment after the first incident and the petitioner's return to full duty. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, finding it to be supported by rational, fact-based medical opinion and substantial evidence.

Disability RetirementPerformance of DutyCorrection OfficerShoulder InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationComptroller's DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceCPLR Article 78
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aufrichtig v. Lowell

The case concerns a lawsuit filed by Burton and Janette Aufrichtig against Dr. Bruce K. Lowell, Janette's treating physician. The Aufrichtigs alleged that Dr. Lowell provided false sworn testimony and an affidavit to Hartford Insurance Company regarding Janette's medical condition and need for skilled nursing care during a prior federal lawsuit for insurance benefits. This false information allegedly compelled the Aufrichtigs to settle their claim for fewer benefits. The Court of Appeals considered whether a treating physician has a duty to provide truthful information to a patient's insurer, particularly under oath. The Court held that such a duty exists as part of the physician-patient confidential relationship and reversed the lower court's grant of summary judgment to Dr. Lowell, finding that factual issues remained.

physician-patient relationshipduty of caretruthful testimonysummary judgmentinsurance benefitsmedical malpracticefiduciary dutyCPLREducation Lawmultiple sclerosis
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,077 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