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. Headley

The defendant, John E. Headley, an attorney and outside counsel for the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), faced charges including grand larceny, falsifying business records, and conspiracy. He was accused of fraudulently obtaining paid assignments from the NYCTA to procure independent medical examinations (IMEs) by using a fictitious name, "James Douglas," to conceal a conflict of interest. Headley moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing a lack of intent to defraud and no pecuniary loss to the NYCTA, as the contracted IME services were rendered. The court granted the dismissal of the larceny and first-degree falsifying business records counts, ruling that the prosecution failed to demonstrate criminal intent to deprive the NYCTA of property or that the submitted documents constituted "business records" for the purpose of those specific charges. However, the motion to dismiss the charges of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree was denied, as concealing his identity frustrated the NYCTA's legitimate interests in a fair vendor selection process and accurate vendor identification, thus constituting an "intent to defraud" under that statute.

Grand LarcenyFalsifying Business RecordsConspiracyFalse PretensesIndependent Medical Examinations (IMEs)Conflict of InterestIntent to DefraudPecuniary LossSufficiency of EvidenceMotion to Dismiss
References
28
Case No. SBR 0315782
Regular
Jul 30, 2007

GORDON ADAMS vs. SOUTHLAND DRYWALL COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a lien claimant, Premier Outpatient Surgery Center, Inc., whose lien was denied because it allegedly did not use its full corporate name or have a fictitious business name permit. The Appeals Board rescinded the denial and returned the case for further proceedings, finding that Premier was properly licensed as an outpatient facility and that the defendant did not timely raise the fictitious business name statement issue. The Board clarified that a facility fee lien claimant is not required to have a Medical Board fictitious-name permit, but may need to file a fictitious business name statement if operating under a name other than its legal corporate name.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantFictitious Business Name StatementFictitious-Name PermitBusiness & Professions Code Section 17910Business & Professions Code Section 2415(a)Medical Board of CaliforniaOutpatient SettingFacility FeeCompromise and Release
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Coello

Stefan Coello, who previously pled guilty to selling counterfeit social security and alien registration cards, was found in possession of counterfeit laminates resembling INS I-688 Temporary Resident cards. The Government moved for a pre-sentence ruling to classify these laminates as "identification documents" under 18 U.S.C. § 1028. The Court, presided over by District Judge BATTS, ruled that while the laminates themselves are not complete identification documents, their possession constitutes an attempt to possess false identification documents, possession of document-making implements, and an "attempt to produce identification documents". Therefore, the Government's motion was granted in part and denied in part.

Counterfeit DocumentsIdentity Theft18 U.S.C. § 1028Document-Making ImplementAttempted PossessionAttempted ProductionImmigration DocumentsINSFederal CrimeSentencing Guidelines
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02649 [162 AD3d 25]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2018

People v. Hargrove

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order to vacate Rosean Hargrove's judgment of conviction for murder and assault and grant a new trial. The Supreme Court's decision was based on newly discovered evidence revealing a pattern of police misconduct by Detective Louis Scarcella, who was instrumental in obtaining the sole identification testimony against Hargrove. The Appellate Division found that this evidence, coupled with inconsistencies in the initial police investigation and the handling of forensic evidence, created a probability of a more favorable verdict for the defendant at a new trial. The court emphasized that the People's case was exceptionally weak, relying solely on Crosson's identification, which was problematic given the detective's documented history of facilitating false identification testimony and the questionable circumstances surrounding the identification procedures.

Criminal Justice SystemPolice MisconductFalse IdentificationNewly Discovered EvidenceCPL 440.10Due ProcessWitness CredibilitySuppression HearingConviction Integrity UnitForensic Evidence
References
77
Case No. LAO 0878674
Regular
Mar 06, 2008

KARLA BUENO vs. PLAZA DEFENDANT LA RAZA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision that barred a lien claim due to the alleged lack of a fictitious business name permit. The WCAB found that while the lien claimant presented a surgical clinic license, the record was unclear about its actual business name and compliance with fictitious name filing requirements. The case is remanded for further proceedings to determine the lien claimant's true name and establish its compliance with fictitious business name laws.

Fictitious Business Name StatementSurgical Clinic LicenseHealth ServicesBusiness and Professions CodeMedical BoardLien ClaimantOutpatient SettingAdministrative Law JudgeReconsiderationReasonableness of Fees
References
14
Case No. STK 0189570
Regular
Jul 30, 2007

JOSEPH BUENO vs. AMERICAN FIRE SYSTEMS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision, allowing a lien claim of $10,838.43 for facility fees. The defendant argued the lien should be disallowed due to the lien claimant's alleged lack of a fictitious name permit. However, the Board found the lien claimant met its burden of proof by demonstrating proper licensure and that it was not operating under a fictitious name, thus not requiring a fictitious name permit from the Medical Board.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantFictitious name permitMedical Board of CaliforniaFacility feesArthroscopic surgeryStipulated awardPermanent disabilityFuture medical treatmentAmbulatory surgical centers
References
2
Case No. RIV 0037205, RIV 0070473
Regular
Jul 24, 2007

LORRIE AVERETTE vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior ruling that Premier Outpatient Surgery Center was properly licensed and not required to have a fictitious name permit for services rendered. The defendant argued Premier lacked proper licensure and a fictitious name permit, but the Board found Premier met its burden of proof by submitting evidence of its licensure and accreditation. Premier was determined to be an "outpatient setting" rather than a "clinic," thus not requiring a fictitious name permit from the Medical Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantFictitious name permitMedical Board of CaliforniaOutpatient surgery servicesLicensureAccreditationAmbulatory surgical centersZenith Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Capi)Stokes v. Patton State Hospital
References
2
Case No. W2012-01059-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2013

State of Tennessee v. Joshua Smith

The Defendant-Appellant, Joshua Smith, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated robbery. He appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress the victim's identification, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, and that his sentence was excessive. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the judgments of the trial court. The court found that the photographic lineup was not unduly suggestive and the identification process was proper. Furthermore, the court determined that the evidence, including the victim's identification, was sufficient to support the conviction, and the sentencing was within the trial court's discretion.

Aggravated RobberySufficiency of EvidenceMotion to SuppressPhotographic IdentificationEyewitness IdentificationAlibi DefenseSentencing AppealCriminal LawAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
33
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03320 [42 NY3d 708]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2024

People v. Wright

Freddie T. Wright appealed his conviction, challenging the denial of his Batson challenge to the People's peremptory strikes on prospective jurors and his motion to suppress identification testimony. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions, finding record support for the race-neutral reasons provided for the strikes. The Court also concluded that the showup identification procedure used by the police was not unduly suggestive given its close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime. The dissent raised concerns regarding the trial court's Batson analysis and the suggestiveness of the identification procedures.

Batson challengeperemptory strikesjury selectionracial discriminationshowup identificationunduly suggestivedue processcriminal procedureappellate reviewtrial court discretion
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 1989

People v. Acosta

The defendant was convicted of multiple counts of robbery in the first degree, stemming from two separate incidents at a cosmetics store where he displayed a weapon. The convictions were based on jury trial findings and guilty pleas, leading to a sentence as a violent predicate felon. Key evidence included a latent fingerprint recovered from the crime scene and eyewitness identifications by store employees. On appeal, the defendant challenged the suggestiveness of the photographic identification procedures, but the court found these arguments without merit. The judgments of conviction were unanimously affirmed, with the court noting strong identification testimony and fingerprint evidence.

Robbery First DegreeViolent Predicate FelonJury TrialGuilty PleaFingerprint EvidenceEyewitness IdentificationPhotographic IdentificationLineup IdentificationIdentification ProcedureAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 185 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