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
Apr 26, 2004

Claim of Lopresti v. Washington Mills

A claimant appealed an amended decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, which disqualified him from wage replacement benefits for violating Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The claimant initially misrepresented how he sustained a knee injury, claiming he slipped on ice, but later admitted it was due to an altercation with a coworker. While a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found the injury compensable and no violation, the Board modified this, concluding the claimant knowingly made a false statement material to his claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the claimant's motivation to protect a coworker was a credibility issue for the Board to resolve. The court upheld the discretionary penalty of disqualification from wage replacement benefits, finding the Board's determination supported by substantial evidence.

False StatementFraudulent MisrepresentationWage Replacement DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate AffirmationClaimant CredibilityMateriality of FalsehoodKnee Injury ClaimWorkplace AltercationStatutory Violation § 114-a
References
7
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bub v. Rockstone Capital, LLC

Keith Bub appealed an order from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, which denied his discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A). The Bankruptcy Court found that Bub had made false and fraudulent statements concerning his income, expenses, and his company's assets and liabilities, intending to deceive both creditors and the court. Bub challenged these findings, arguing for reversal or remand, asserting that the evidence was misinterpreted and insufficient to prove falsehoods or intent to deceive. Appellee Rockstone Capital, LLC, countered that Bub had engaged in a prolonged pattern of asset hiding and making false statements under oath. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision, concluding that the finding of knowingly made material false statements with fraudulent intent, or at least reckless disregard for the truth, was not clearly erroneous.

Bankruptcy DischargeFalse OathFraudulent IntentDebtor-Creditor RelationsFinancial MisrepresentationCorporate FormalityJudicial ReviewChapter 7 BankruptcyAsset ConcealmentIncome Understatement
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diaz v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Pedro Antonio Diaz appealed a trial court judgment suspending his law license for 18 months in Texas. The disciplinary action stemmed from a complaint by his former law partner, Kenneth Korth, who alleged Diaz made false statements in an affidavit during a lawsuit concerning a $15,000 debt and an equitable lien on Diaz's home. The Commission for Lawyer Discipline brought charges against Diaz, including making false statements to a tribunal, commingling funds, and engaging in dishonest conduct. A jury found Diaz committed all three violations. On appeal, Diaz challenged the submission of two additional violations and the sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no reversible error and sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings, particularly regarding the false statement made to a tribunal.

Lawyer DisciplineProfessional MisconductFalse StatementsAffidavitEquitable LienTrial De NovoSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewSuspension of LicenseCommingling Funds
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johnson v. New York State Department of Transportation

Claimant, receiving workers' compensation benefits stemming from a 1992 work-related injury, was convicted of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in 2000, admitting to receiving $270 from a drug sale. At a subsequent workers' compensation hearing, the claimant denied receiving any income from self-employment or other sources since May 1998. The employer's workers’ compensation carrier contended this was a false statement and sought suspension of wage benefits pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that the claimant knowingly made a false statement in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a and ruled that he was disqualified from receiving further wage replacement benefits, reversing a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that the claimant’s statement was knowingly false, thereby justifying the disqualification.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFalse StatementMisrepresentation of Material FactWage Replacement BenefitsDisqualification from BenefitsDrug Sale IncomeKnowing FalsificationWitness CredibilityAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmed
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castillo v. Casado (In Re Casado)

Herman and Janet Castillo, the Plaintiffs, initiated an adversary proceeding to prevent the discharge of the Debtor, Aníbal Casado, M.D., under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A). They alleged that the Debtor made false statements in his bankruptcy schedules by misrepresenting accounts receivable, failing to list household goods, and omitting several pending lawsuits. The Court found compelling evidence that the Debtor made material false oaths and exhibited a pattern of deceit, primarily to avoid paying the Castillos' judgment. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Debtor knowingly made false statements and, therefore, his discharge will be denied.

Bankruptcy FraudFalse OathsDischarge DenialAccounts Receivable UnderstatementUndisclosed AssetsUndisclosed LawsuitsReckless IndifferenceChapter 7 BankruptcyCreditor RightsMedical Malpractice Judgment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 1990

Claim of Harris v. Syracuse University

The claimant, employed by Syracuse University, failed to disclose pre-existing multiple sclerosis on a pre-employment health statement in August 1986. After applying for disability benefits in March 1987, the self-insured employer initially paid but then rejected the claim in May 1987, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 220 (6) due to the false statement. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant was not precluded from receiving benefits, finding no evidence that the false statement was made specifically to obtain disability benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting § 220 (6) narrowly and noting that the claimant was not obligated to disclose medical conditions not related to a bona fide occupational qualification.

Workers' CompensationDisability BenefitsFalse StatementPre-employment MisrepresentationMultiple SclerosisEmployer Rejection of ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 220(6)Legislative IntentStatutory InterpretationBona Fide Occupational Qualification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

in the Estate of Aminta Perez-Muzza

Veronica Peña appealed the trial court’s dismissal of her lawsuit contesting the will of Aminta Perez-Muzza. The trial court had dismissed the contest on two grounds: lack of standing due to Veronica's alleged acceptance of benefits under the will (jewelry and P.O.D. account funds), and as a sanction for false statements made by Veronica. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that Veronica's receipt of jewelry indirectly from a devisee and her acceptance of nontestamentary P.O.D. funds did not estop her from challenging the will. Furthermore, the court found that the 'death-penalty sanction' of dismissal with prejudice for Veronica's false statements was an abuse of discretion, as the statements were immaterial to the standing issue and lesser sanctions were not considered. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Will ContestEstate LawProbateStandingEquitable EstoppelAcceptance of BenefitsNontestamentary TransferPayable on Death AccountJudicial SanctionsDismissal with Prejudice
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moody v. Hutchison

Plaintiff Wanda Moody, a Knox County Commissioner, requested public records from Defendant Sheriff Timothy Hutchison under the Tennessee Public Records Act. Defendant provided some, but not all, documents and made false representations regarding their existence and availability. Plaintiff sought criminal contempt charges against Defendant for these false statements and obstruction of justice. The Trial Court found Defendant guilty of criminal contempt for making at least six willfully false statements in a signed response, obstructing court processes, and imposed a $300 fine. Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, notice of criminal contempt, and the appropriateness of criminal vs. civil contempt. The appellate court affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence, proper notice, and that criminal contempt was a suitable remedy for preserving the court's authority, and held the Defendant personally responsible for the fine.

Public Records ActCriminal ContemptFalse StatementsObstruction of JusticeKnox County SheriffGovernment TransparencyDocument ProductionAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionBurden of Proof
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Brandle Meadows, LLC

Petitioner, a construction manager, sought to compel respondent to provide a verified statement regarding trust funds for a construction project under Lien Law article 3-A, claiming the initial statement was deficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing referral of the main contractual dispute to arbitration. On appeal, the court ruled that the arbitration did not negate the respondent's obligation to provide a compliant verified statement. The court found respondent's provided statement insufficient across multiple categories required by Lien Law § 75 (3). Consequently, the appeal court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, granted the petition, and directed the respondent to furnish a compliant verified statement.

Lien LawVerified StatementConstruction ManagerTrust FundsArbitrationAppellate ReviewStatutory TrustReal Property ImprovementTrust BeneficiaryCompliance Deficiency
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,818 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