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

Rolon v. Henneman

Plaintiff Dennis Rolon, a police officer, sued Sergeant Ari Moskowitz under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourteenth Amendment due process violations for false disciplinary charges and testimony that led to his suspension. The court considered Moskowitz's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that Rolon failed to state a claim for false testimony because Moskowitz's testimony was struck from the record and disbelieved. Additionally, Rolon's claims for malicious prosecution and fabrication of evidence failed because his Fourth Amendment rights were not implicated, as he faced administrative rather than criminal charges, and suffered no deprivation of liberty, only property loss. Consequently, Moskowitz’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted.

Due processSection 1983False disciplinary chargesAbsolute immunityQualified immunityMalicious prosecutionFabrication of evidenceFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentAdministrative proceedings
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McCormack v. Eastport Manor Construction

The claimant suffered a work-related accident in May 2001 and initially denied returning to work or performing volunteer work. Later, he amended his testimony, admitting to working for Casa Concrete and performing volunteer work at ground zero after September 11, 2001. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a by knowingly making false statements to obtain benefits, disqualifying him. The appellate court agreed with the Board's finding of false testimony but reversed the decision regarding the penalty. The court found that the Board's decision lacked clarity on whether the penalty was mandatory or discretionary and the rationale for its imposition, thus remitting the case for further proceedings to elaborate on the penalty's basis.

Workers' CompensationFalse TestimonyMisrepresentation of Work ActivitiesDisqualification from BenefitsSection 114-a ViolationAppellate ReviewRemittalPenalty AssessmentDue ProcessSubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Meyerovich

The claimant, a maintenance technician, was discharged for misconduct after his manager observed him loafing on the job and he subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim for a back injury, which the employer alleged was false. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified the claimant from receiving benefits due to misconduct, a decision it adhered to upon reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence in the manager's testimony that she did not observe the claimant using a shovel during her observation, thus supporting the finding of a false workers' compensation claim and misconduct. The court also noted that conflicting testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve and that prior Workers' Compensation Board decisions were not final regarding the accidental injury issue, thus lacking collateral estoppel effect.

MisconductUnemployment Insurance BenefitsFalse Workers' Compensation ClaimSubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssueDischarge from EmploymentLoafingProbationAppeal Board DecisionAffirmation
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04250 [172 AD3d 1851]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2019

Matter of Stone v. Saulsbury/Federal Signal

Claimant Robert Stone, who suffered a work-related back injury in 2002 and was classified with a permanent partial disability, had his workers' compensation benefits suspended in 2016 following his incarceration for unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine. Upon his release in 2017, the workers' compensation carrier raised the issue of a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation, alleging false statements or work performed while receiving benefits. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board found insufficient evidence to establish any work activity or false statements. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing that claimant's criminal conduct constituted "work" under WCL § 114-a and challenging the Board's credibility determinations regarding hearsay testimony. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimant did not violate Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, as the elements of the crime did not require work to be performed, and the Board, as the sole arbiter of credibility, was free to disregard uncredited testimony.

Workers' Compensation FraudPermanent Partial DisabilityMethamphetamine ConvictionBenefit SuspensionBenefit ReinstatementWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aSubstantial Evidence ReviewWitness CredibilityAppellate AffirmationCriminal Conduct and Benefits
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Buchanan v. Ford

The plaintiff, mother of an infant boy, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a caseworker for Chenango Valley Social Services, alleging wrongful separation from her son. The plaintiff made three claims: that the defendant wrongfully caused her son to be placed in protective custody, gave false testimony in Family Court, and provided less than "liberal and reasonable visitation." The defendant sought dismissal or summary judgment based on various immunity defenses. The court denied the defendant's motion concerning the protective custody claim, citing New York's good-faith immunity statute (Family Court Act § 1024(c)) and a remaining factual dispute. However, the court dismissed the claim regarding false testimony, granting absolute witness immunity. Finally, summary judgment was granted to the defendant on the visitation claim, as the court found her conduct objectively reasonable under New York Department of Social Services regulations (N.Y. Admin.Code, tit. 18 § 430.12(d)(l)(1985)).

Official ImmunityQualified ImmunityAbsolute ImmunityChild ProtectionFamily Court ActFederal Civil RightsFalse TestimonyVisitation RightsSummary JudgmentDismissal
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2006

People v. Niver

The defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the fourth degree, welfare fraud in the fourth degree, and two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, all stemming from her failure to report income while receiving public assistance benefits. On appeal, the defendant challenged the denial of her speedy trial motion, the legal sufficiency of the evidence for her convictions, particularly regarding the value of property wrongfully taken and intent to defraud, and several evidentiary rulings by the County Court. The court found no speedy trial violation, concluding that only 173 days were chargeable to the People. The court also determined that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the convictions, noting witness testimony on overpayment exceeding $1,000 and the defendant's failure to disclose workers' compensation income. The various evidentiary rulings, including those related to the Molineux application and business records, were upheld. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed.

Grand LarcenyWelfare FraudFalse Instrument for FilingSpeedy Trial ViolationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceIntent to DefraudEvidentiary RulingsMolineux ApplicationBusiness Records ExceptionCriminal Procedure Law
References
14
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

In re S. Children

This child protective proceeding was initiated by The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children against a father accused of sexually abusing his young son, Scott, in the presence of his older son, Jonathan. When Jonathan, an alleged eyewitness, became reluctant to testify in his father's presence, the petitioner requested his testimony be taken in camera. The court denied this application, citing the respondent's due process right to confront witnesses and finding insufficient evidence of a pathological impact on the child. The court emphasized the absence of statutory provisions for in camera testimony in such cases and suggested legislative consideration for future procedures to balance child protection with parental rights.

Child Protective ProceedingIn Camera TestimonyDue Process RightsRight to ConfrontationChild WitnessSexual Abuse AllegationsFamily Court ActWitness ReluctanceBalancing of InterestsExclusion of Respondent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Hobika

The respondent, an attorney admitted in 1997, was convicted of criminal solicitation in the fourth degree in 1999, a class A misdemeanor. This conviction stemmed from his actions in a Workers' Compensation case where he solicited the dying claimant's sister to impersonate the claimant and provide perjured testimony to secure a $22,000 lump-sum settlement. He coached the sister on her testimony and arranged for an unsuspecting attorney to appear with her. The Workers' Compensation Board approved the settlement based on this false testimony, and the claimant died shortly after. The Court deemed criminal solicitation a serious crime involving interference with the administration of justice, undermining public trust. Despite considering mitigating factors, the Court rejected the respondent's attempt to minimize his misconduct and found him unfit to practice law, leading to his disbarment.

Attorney DisciplineProfessional MisconductCriminal SolicitationPerjuryAdministration of JusticeDisbarmentWorkers' Compensation FraudEthical ViolationsAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2005

United States v. Awadallah

The case addresses the admissibility of grand juror testimony in the perjury trial of Osama Awadallah, who was indicted for allegedly false statements made during a grand jury investigation into the September 11 attacks. Awadallah's defense posited that any inaccuracies in his testimony stemmed from confusion or intimidation, leading the government to propose calling grand jurors to testify about his demeanor. The Court granted Awadallah’s motion to preclude grand jurors from offering subjective impressions regarding his state of mind (e.g., whether he appeared confused or lucid). This preclusion was based on Federal Rules of Evidence 606(b), which protects the integrity of grand jury deliberations and the privacy of jurors, and Rule 403, citing concerns about unfair prejudice and confusion of legal standards. However, the Court allowed grand jurors to testify about objective physical conditions and events during Awadallah's testimony, such as the room's layout or any threatening gestures.

PerjuryGrand Jury TestimonyAdmissibility of EvidenceFederal Rules of Evidence 606(b)Federal Rules of Evidence 403Lay Opinion TestimonyWitness TestimonyJudicial PreclusionDemeanor EvidenceSeptember 11 Attacks Investigation
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 4,361 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