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

Main Evaluations, Inc. v. State

The claimant, Main Medical Evaluations, entered into contracts with the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) to perform consultative medical evaluations. OTDA terminated these contracts, alleging the claimant failed to disclose professional disciplinary proceedings against its chief medical officer, Arvinder Sachdev, and submitted false information during the bidding process. Following the dismissal of its claim in the Court of Claims, the claimant appealed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that OTDA had legitimate grounds for termination due to the claimant's misrepresentations and failure to report substantial contract-related issues concerning Sachdev's integral role. Additionally, the court rejected the claimant's equal protection argument, finding no evidence of selective enforcement based on impermissible considerations.

Contract TerminationProfessional MisconductFalse RepresentationEqual ProtectionGovernment ContractsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractMedical LicensingAdministrative ProceedingsDue Diligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2005

Sassower-Berlin v. Berlin

This case details an appeal by the Law Guardian for the children and the father from a Family Court order in Nassau County, entered December 12, 2005. The underlying proceeding aimed to modify a 2001 divorce judgment that had terminated the mother’s visitation rights. Appellants sought to vacate orders directing forensic examinations of the father and children, and to summarily dismiss the modification proceeding. The appellate court dismissed the appeal concerning one child as academic. It found the order for the father's examination erroneous but affirmed the discretion to order children's evaluations. However, in exercising its own discretion, the court granted the motion to vacate the forensic examinations for the minor children due to their opposition and prior trauma. The court denied the motion to summarily dismiss the mother's petition, allowing it to proceed to a hearing.

Child visitationDivorce judgment modificationForensic examinationsMental health evaluationAppellate reviewFamily Court ActChildren's welfareJudicial discretionLaw GuardianChildren's wishes
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Medical Evaluation Specialists, Inc.

Justice Wilson dissents from the majority's decision on a motion for rehearing, arguing that the majority improperly considered non-evidence and engaged in speculation. The dissent contends that Lennie Davis's controverting affidavit by Dr. Bergeron, which stated a 17% impairment rating compared to the defendants' 0%, was conclusory and insufficient to establish bad faith by Medical Evaluation Specialists, Inc., Dr. DeFrancesco, and Dr. Dozier. Justice Wilson believes that the affidavit failed to meet the objective 'no reasonable doctor' standard for controverting good faith, and therefore, the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants should have been affirmed based on official immunity.

Summary JudgmentOfficial ImmunityGood FaithImpairment RatingMedical AffidavitConclusory StatementsTexas Workers' Compensation ActAppellate ReviewDissenting OpinionPermanent Disability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

55th Management Corp. v. Goldman

This case addresses whether an out-of-court statement made to a court evaluator in an Article 81 guardianship proceeding is protected by absolute privilege, thereby defeating a defamation claim. The defendant, a tenant, made allegedly defamatory remarks about a landlord to a court evaluator during the evaluator's investigation for a guardianship proceeding. The court considered if the remarks were pertinent, if a statement to a court evaluator is considered part of a judicial proceeding, and if the speaker had standing. The court found the remarks pertinent, extended the absolute privilege to statements made to court evaluators given their role as court agents, and affirmed the defendant's standing as a potential witness. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was granted.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsCourt EvaluatorGuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Tenant-Landlord DisputeMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Scope of Privilege
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

B.T. v. D.M.

The petitioner, B.T., sought to extend an order of protection against her husband, respondent D.M., and alleged a violation of a previous order. D.M. counter-petitioned for visitation with their child. The court denied B.T.'s violation petition, finding insufficient evidence that D.M. orchestrated his older son's actions. However, B.T.'s request to extend the order of protection was granted for two additional years, citing D.M.'s history of severe domestic violence against B.T. (witnessed by the child) and continued harassment including stalking and threatening phone calls even after the initial order. D.M.'s petition for visitation was denied based on the child's best interests; a forensic evaluator reported the child suffered trauma from witnessing the violence and opposed visitation, noting forcing visits could worsen the child's high anxiety and fearfulness. The court found D.M.'s testimony not credible and supported the forensic evaluator's assessment.

Domestic ViolenceOrder of ProtectionChild VisitationChild CustodyForensic PsychologyChild TraumaParental BehaviorBest Interests of the ChildHarassmentStalking
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schairer v. Schairer

The wife filed a motion to disqualify the law firm of Sari Friedman, P.C. from representing her husband in their ongoing divorce proceedings, citing a conflict of interest. This conflict stemmed from Ms. Friedman's prior representation of the court-appointed custody forensic expert in his own divorce case in 1995. The husband cross-moved to disqualify the same forensic expert, alleging potential bias against police officers and Ms. Friedman's previous representation of the expert. The court found a clear appearance of a conflict of interest, as Ms. Friedman could not effectively cross-examine her former client, the expert, without potentially using privileged confidential information. Consequently, the court granted the wife's motion to disqualify Sari Friedman, P.C. and denied the husband's cross-motion, determining that any claims of bias against the expert could be addressed during trial.

DivorceAttorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestForensic ExpertCustodySpousal DisputeProfessional EthicsConfidentialityLegal RepresentationJudicial Opinion
References
10
Case No. 2016-03-0413
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2017

Dodson, Deborah v. LHC Group

Deborah Dodson, an employee of LHC Group, injured her left ankle and right knee in May 2015. She underwent knee surgery and was placed at maximum medical improvement by Dr. Johnson. She later developed small fiber neuropathy, and despite a referral, faced difficulties obtaining a neurologic impairment evaluation. The Court granted Ms. Dodson's request for a neurologic impairment evaluation, either by Dr. Butler or another neurologist, referring Dr. Butler to the Penalty Program for failure to provide an impairment opinion. However, the Court denied her claim for additional temporary total disability benefits, finding she reached MMI on March 23, 2017, when Dr. Butler ceased active treatment.

Workers' CompensationNeurologic Impairment EvaluationTemporary Total Disability BenefitsMaximum Medical ImprovementSmall Fiber NeuropathyPain ManagementExpedited HearingMedical TreatmentImpairment RatingPenalty Program
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anthony McK. v. Dawn M.

Dr. Louis Lauro, a court-appointed forensic evaluator, filed a motion to be relieved from a child custody case, citing a conflict of interest after being sued by the petitioner. The petitioner initially concurred with the motion, while the respondent and the attorney for the child strongly opposed it, emphasizing the child's best interests and the need to avoid further delays in a case that had already seen multiple evaluators. The court, presided over by Judge Paula J. Hepner, J., denied Dr. Lauro's motion. The decision underscored the principle that litigants cannot impede judicial proceedings and prioritized the child's right to finality and well-being, finding no actual conflict of interest since Dr. Lauro only assessed the respondent and had no professional relationship with the petitioner. The court also highlighted that the petitioner's litigious behavior had significantly delayed the custody proceedings, to the detriment of the child.

Child CustodyForensic EvaluationConflict of InterestPsychological EthicsJudicial DiscretionBest Interests of the ChildDelay in LitigationRecusal AnalogyFamily LawLitigant Misconduct
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Morton

Michael Wayne Morton, convicted of his wife's murder in 1987, sought post-conviction forensic DNA testing of various pieces of evidence under chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The district court partially denied his motion, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the denial of testing for evidence related to a separate murder and for fingerprint evidence, finding these did not meet the statutory requirements of being "secured in relation to the offense" or containing "biological material." However, the court reversed the denial for a blood-stained bandana recovered near the crime scene. The court concluded that if DNA testing on the bandana yielded exculpatory results (Christine's blood and a third party's DNA), there is a greater than 50% likelihood that Morton would not have been convicted, and thus remanded the case for further proceedings concerning the bandana.

forensic DNA testingmurder convictionappealcriminal procedureexculpatory evidenceblood-stained bandanaunidentified fingerprintscircumstantial evidencetime of deathunknown intruder theory
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Carew

The court considered two child abuse petitions filed by the Suffolk County Department of Social Services against a father, based on unsworn statements from his three and five-year-old children. The respondent father moved for psychiatric evaluations of the children and their mother to defend against the allegations, citing the need for expert assessment of the children's credibility. The court balanced the children's welfare against the father's right to a fair trial, noting the unique challenges of corroborating out-of-court statements in Article 10 proceedings. The court granted the father's request to the extent of ordering a validation interview for both children, stipulating a court-designated examiner if parties could not agree. The request for the mother's examination was denied due to insufficient justification.

Child AbuseFamily Court ActPsychiatric EvaluationChild CredibilityHearsay TestimonyCorroboration RequirementDue ProcessParental RightsSuffolk CountyUnsworn Statements
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 2,238 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