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

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

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
Case No. ADJ8307306
Regular
Jan 23, 2014

CARLOS ANDRADE vs. DYNAMIC PLUMBING SERVICES, NUFI CO. OF PITTSBURGH PENNSYLVANIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as untimely filed. The Board removed the case on its own motion to consider imposing sanctions of up to $2,500 against the lien claimant and its representatives. This action stems from allegations that they filed a petition containing false statements regarding receipt of notices. The Board found proof of service contradicted their claims, potentially violating rules against false statements in filings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantLien Activation FeeOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimProof of ServiceSanctionsLabor Code § 5903Labor Code § 5316Code Civ. Proc.
References
2
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bloom v. Fox News of Los Angeles

Plaintiff William Bloom sued Fox Television Stations, Inc. for defamation and false light invasion of privacy, alleging a news broadcast falsely portrayed him as a morally corrupt and incompetent physician. The broadcast detailed charges from the New York State Department of Health's Office of Professional Medical Conduct, which led to limitations on Bloom's medical license. Fox moved for summary judgment, arguing the statements were substantially true, privileged, or pure opinion. The Court granted summary judgment to Fox, concluding the broadcast was a fair and true report of official proceedings and that statements made were either substantially true or unactionable opinion.

DefamationFalse LightSummary JudgmentFirst AmendmentNew York LawMedical MisconductOfficial ProceedingsSubstantial TruthFreedom of SpeechMedia Law
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 1,283 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