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

People v. Barto

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in Seneca County Court for insurance fraud in the third degree, falsifying business records in the first degree, defrauding the government, and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree. The charges arose from the defendant, an acting Village Justice, falsely reporting an assault to police, allegedly to obtain prescription pain medication. Medical evidence presented by the prosecution, including the absence of injuries despite extensive testing, contradicted the defendant's account of being strangled and struck. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment, rejecting the defendant's contentions regarding the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The court found that the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant falsely reported the incident and caused a false workers' compensation form to be filed. The appellate court also found no reason to modify the sentence despite improper prosecutorial statements.

Insurance FraudFalsifying Business RecordsDefrauding GovernmentFalse ReportingAssault ClaimMedical EvidenceLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceWorkers' CompensationJury Trial
References
8
Case No. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Starks

Defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the third degree and two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, stemming from his failure to report workers' compensation benefits while receiving social services benefits. The appellate court first addressed the defendant's Batson challenge regarding a peremptorily excused black juror, affirming the lower court's finding that the prosecutor's explanation was race-neutral. Next, the court found legally sufficient evidence to support the grand larceny conviction, noting that the defendant's misrepresentations were material and resulted in an overpayment exceeding $3,000. Additionally, the court rejected claims of abridged confrontation rights, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, the judgment was modified to impose concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentences for the grand larceny and false instrument for filing convictions, and as modified, affirmed.

Grand LarcenyFalse Instrument for FilingSocial Services Benefits FraudWorkers' Compensation OverpaymentBatson ChallengeJuror Peremptory ChallengeSufficiency of EvidenceConfrontation Clause RightsProsecutorial MisconductIneffective Assistance of Counsel
References
23
Case No. 15-0129
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2014

Baltasar D. Cruz v. James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman D/B/A Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen

This case involves a libel lawsuit filed by Baltasar D. Cruz against James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report (BOR), and Katherine Haenschen. The lawsuit stemmed from a statement in an article posted on the BOR website by Van Sickle regarding Cruz, who was a judicial candidate. The trial court initially granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and awarded attorney's fees to all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit and the award of attorney's fees to James Van Sickle. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney's fees to Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen, ruling that as they were represented pro bono, they did not 'incur' attorney's fees as required by the TCPA.

LibelDefamationTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPPro Bono RepresentationAttorney's FeesJudicial CandidatePublic OfficialFreedom of SpeechStatutory Interpretation
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valdez v. Commercial Union Assurance Companies

Carlos Valdez, the appellant, sued Commercial Union Assurance Companies to set aside a worker's compensation settlement. Valdez sustained an ankle injury while working for NAPA and later complained of back pain, which Dr. Langston reported as non-existent. Valdez settled for $2,000, but subsequently underwent back surgery for a ruptured disc. He alleged fraud, claiming reliance on false representations by Dr. Langston, whom he claimed was an agent of Commercial Union. The jury found that Dr. Langston's representation was false and material to Valdez's decision, but failed to find that Commercial Union used the reports to induce the settlement or that Dr. Langston was their agent. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no evidence that the appellee used the reports to induce the settlement or that Dr. Langston was their agent.

Compromise SettlementFraudulent InducementMedical MisrepresentationAppellate AffirmationAgent AuthorityJury Verdict ReviewBack Injury ClaimWorker's Injury SettlementInsurance DisputeTreating Physician Role
References
3
Case No. 01 Cr. 1004 (NG)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2001

United States v. Agnello

The defendants, including New York Shredding Corp. and Carmine Agnello, moved to suppress electronic surveillance evidence and requested a Franks v. Delaware hearing. They alleged that the underlying eavesdropping warrant application contained false statements or reckless omissions regarding property ownership and probable cause. Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy recommended denying the motion, concluding that sufficient probable cause existed for the warrant even without the disputed "rent" conversations, citing corroborated confidential informant information, detective expertise, and other intercepted communications. District Judge Nina Gershon adopted the Report and Recommendation, thereby denying the defendants' motion to suppress the evidence.

Electronic SurveillanceProbable CauseFranks HearingMotion to SuppressWiretapFourth AmendmentAffiantReckless Disregard for TruthVehicle TheftChop Shop
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 1965

Rivera v. Hellman

This case involves a motion to confirm a Special Referee's report concerning the amounts and priorities of various liens. The Special Referee conducted a hearing and reported on claims from an attorney for the plaintiff ($793.50), Roosevelt Hospital ($846.53), and the Millinery Health Fund ($641.00, later adjusted to $528). The report established the amounts of each lien and recommended priorities, placing the attorney's lien first, followed by the hospital lien (except for a $12 outpatient service), and then the compensation lien. The court concurred with the Special Referee's report and recommendations, granting the motion to confirm.

Lien PriorityAttorney's LienHospital LienDisability BenefitsWorkmen's Compensation LawSpecial Referee ReportMotion GrantedNew York Supreme CourtLien LawMotion Practice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colindres v. Carpenito

Plaintiff Rochelle Colindres sought a protective order to deny defendants' demand for a medical report from her former treating psychologist, Diane Henry, or alternatively, relief from compliance with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts § 202.17(b)(1). Colindres argued that the defendants waived their right to the report as the independent medical examination (IME) already occurred, and that obtaining the report would be an undue hardship since Henry ceased treatment due to Colindres' attendance issues. Defendants Mario Carpenito, Jr., City of White Plains, and White Plains Parking Department opposed, asserting that the report was necessary to clarify alleged injuries, prepare for cross-examination, and facilitate settlement, highlighting Colindres' complex medical history predating the incident. The court denied both branches of Colindres' motion, finding that the rule applies broadly to personal injury actions, defendants did not waive their entitlement, and Colindres failed to prove it was impossible to obtain the report. The court ordered Colindres to exchange a compliant medical report from Diane Henry by March 27, 2017.

protective ordermedical report disclosurediscovery disputepsychological treatmentindependent medical examinationCPLR 310322 NYCRR 202.17waiver of discoveryundue hardshippersonal injury damages
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chaplin v. Pathmark Supermarkets

This case addresses a motion by defendants, including Supermarkets General Corp., for a protective order to vacate the plaintiff Mimi Chaplin's notice for discovery and inspection of accident reports. Mimi Chaplin sought these reports after sustaining personal injuries from a fall at the defendant's premises. The court, presided over by Justice James F. Niehoff, analyzed the newly enacted CPLR 3101 (g), which mandates full disclosure of accident reports prepared in the regular course of business. The court found that the accident report in question was prepared in Supermarkets General Corp.'s regular course of business, rendering it discoverable regardless of its potential use in litigation, thus denying the defendants' motion.

DiscoveryProtective OrderAccident ReportsCPLR 3101(g)Litigation PreparationRegular Course of BusinessPersonal InjuryNegligenceDisclosureEvidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Passari v. New York City Housing Authority

A mason sustained a work-related injury, which was subsequently amended to include a right knee injury. The self-insured employer conducted surveillance, revealing the claimant engaged in strenuous construction tasks despite reporting disability and undergoing medical evaluations. The employer contended claimant made false statements in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a. Although the Workers’ Compensation Board initially found no violation, the appellate court reversed, concluding that claimant knowingly concealed his physical capabilities to obtain benefits. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' Compensation FraudFalse RepresentationSurveillance VideoDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewMedical EvaluationRight Knee InjuryPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderMaterial FactRemittal
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 6,419 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