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. Bailey

Defendant Eric Bailey was observed attempting to pickpocket in Midtown Manhattan and was subsequently arrested. During a search, three counterfeit $10 bills were recovered from his pocket, and he made an incriminating statement acknowledging the counterfeit money. Bailey was convicted of attempted grand larceny and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first degree. The primary legal question before the Court of Appeals was the legal sufficiency of the evidence to prove the

Criminal possessionForged instrumentSufficiency of evidenceIntent to defraudLarcenyCounterfeit moneyPenal LawBurden of proofStatutory interpretationAppellate review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2014

Forest Rehabilitation Medicine PC v. Allstate Insurance

Plaintiff Forest Rehabilitation Medicine PC sued defendant Allstate to recover $3,490 for no-fault medical benefits provided to assignor Tracy Fertitta. The core issue was the medical necessity of "Calmare pain therapy" (scrambler therapy), a novel treatment. The court conducted a bench trial, hearing expert testimony from both sides. Dr. Ayman Hadhoud, for the defense, argued the treatment was not medically necessary, not cost-effective, and essentially a form of physical therapy. Dr. Jack D’Angelo, for the plaintiff, countered that the therapy, though new, had FDA approval, was used by the military, and reduced the assignor's pain levels. Applying the Frye standard, the court found the evidence regarding Calmare scrambler therapy reliable and ruled it was medically necessary for Ms. Fertitta's pain management. Consequently, judgment was awarded to the plaintiff, Forest Rehabilitation Medicine PC, for $3,490 plus attorney's fees and interest.

No-Fault InsuranceMedical NecessityCalmare Pain TherapyScrambler TherapyNovel TreatmentFrye StandardExpert TestimonyPain ManagementFDA ApprovalCervical Radiculopathy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bailey v. Irish Development Corp.

Plaintiff William R. Bailey, Sr., a general laborer, was injured during the removal of large concrete footings from a dump truck when the excavator operator prematurely pulled a chain, causing the concrete to shift and the dump body to rapidly rise, resulting in the plaintiff's fall. He and his wife, derivatively, sued various contractors and owners, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and dismissed several other claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissals related to Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), concluding that the accident did not involve an elevation-related hazard as defined by the statute and that the industrial code provision was misapplied. However, the court reversed the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against the Mark defendants, finding that questions of fact existed regarding their potential supervision or notice of the unsafe working conditions.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary JudgmentConstruction AccidentElevation HazardProximate CauseOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilitySubcontractor Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bailey v. SEABOARD BARGE CORP.

Plaintiff James Bailey, a tankerman, filed a lawsuit under the Jones Act and common law negligence against his employer and other defendants for injuries sustained while attempting to board a barge. Bailey claimed that an unsafe access route and a lack of clear instructions contributed to his fall into the water from a mothballed barge. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that a safe route was available and they were not responsible for the area where Bailey was injured. The court granted the defendants' motions, concluding that Bailey failed to prove a breach of duty of care or proximate causation, as he chose an unsafe alternate route not under the defendants' control.

Jones ActMaritime LawSeamen's InjuriesSummary JudgmentNegligenceLandowner LiabilitySafe Place to WorkBarge AccidentProximate CauseDuty of Care
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bailey v. Village of Pittsford

Edward Bailey, a former full-time Building Inspector and Code Enforcement Officer for the Village of Pittsford, sued his former employer alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation. Bailey's full-time position was eliminated due to budget cuts, and he accepted a newly created part-time role. He contended that the change was discriminatory and that he was denied a pre-termination hearing. The court granted the Village's motion for summary judgment, finding that Bailey failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination and could not rebut the Village's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (budgetary concerns). Additionally, his due process claim was dismissed because he did not request a pre-termination hearing.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentDue ProcessCivil Service LawBudget CutsReduction in ForcePretextADEAFourteenth Amendment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harris v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Plaintiff Morgan Harris, Sr., sustained injuries after slipping on a construction site and initiated a lawsuit against Lehr Construction Corporation. Subsequently, Lehr filed a third-party action against Forest Electric Corporation, the plaintiff's employer, seeking common-law indemnification. Forest moved for summary judgment, contending that Harris did not suffer a "grave injury" as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which would bar Lehr's indemnification claim. The court clarified the burden of proof for "grave injury" in summary judgment, stating that the movant (Forest) must first establish the absence of such injury. As Forest failed to provide prima facie evidence, its motion for summary judgment was denied. Lehr's cross-motion to amend its complaint to include a claim for failure to procure insurance was denied, while its request to add a claim for contractual indemnification was granted. Lehr's motion for summary judgment on its indemnification claims was deemed premature and denied.

summary judgmentgrave injurycommon-law indemnificationcontractual indemnificationthird-party actionburden of proofconstruction site injurymedical evidenceamendment of complaintemployer liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurian v. Forest Hills Hospital 10201 66th Rd Forest Hills

Plaintiff Tressa Kurian initiated an age discrimination lawsuit, initially against North Shore University Hospital and Galia Bagsadarova, later substituting Forest Hills Hospital as a defendant. She alleged age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract, claiming her supervisor, Galia Bagsadarova, subjected her to harassing and abusive conduct leading to constructive discharge. The defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion, ruling that there is no individual liability under the ADEA for Bagsadarova, and Kurian failed to plausibly allege an adverse employment action or constructive discharge, as she had not ceased her employment. As a result, the ADEA claim was dismissed with prejudice, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice due to the court declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeFederal Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)ADEAState Law ClaimsSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Blair v. Bailey

Claimant, an employee at New Laundromat, owned by Percival Bailey, was shot and paralyzed by Bailey's son. The Workers' Compensation Board initially denied benefits, but on full Board review, it was determined that an employer-employee relationship existed, and the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, leading to an award of benefits. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the employer-employee relationship and that the assault had a sufficient nexus to employment. The court also found no error in the WCLJ's decision to sua sponte restore the case, as the ultimate determination considered only the initial evidence.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipAssaultCourse of EmploymentPersonal AnimosityCredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1997

Gannon v. JWP Forest Electric Corp.

Plaintiff George Gannon sued Forest Electric Corp. for negligence after falling over an electrical cable allegedly installed by defendant's employee, Fischer, at 90 Park Avenue. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Fischer and Lewis, another employee, were "special employees" of SWI (Sterling Winthrop Industries), which would bar plaintiff's claims under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6). The motion court initially denied the motion, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court found that Lewis and Fischer were indeed special employees of SWI due to SWI's exclusive control over their work, making SWI their de facto employer for workers' compensation purposes. Consequently, plaintiff's action was barred as he had already accepted workers’ compensation benefits.

Special EmploymentWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimEmployer ControlVicarious LiabilityLabor LawAppellate ReversalNew York LawPremises Liability
References
10
Case No. ADJ13220428; ADJ11736712
Regular
Sep 24, 2025

MATTHEW BAILEY vs. HOTLINE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Matthew Bailey's petition to disqualify the administrative law judge (WCJ). The petition alleged the WCJ was considering sanctions for the applicant's attorney's trial absence due to a calendar conflict and had advised accepting a settlement. The WCAB found the allegations lacked specific facts and did not demonstrate bias or an unqualified opinion on the merits, consistent with legal standards for disqualification. The applicant's attorney was admonished for failing to provide adequate facts and for not promptly notifying the court of calendar conflicts.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJCalendar ConflictSettlement OfferLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641BiasEnmityAffidavitDeclaration
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 70 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