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. 2016-334 S C
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2017

2 & 9 Acupuncture, P.C. v. 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by 2 & 9 Acupuncture, P.C. from an amended order that granted summary judgment to 21st Century Advantage Insurance Company, dismissing a complaint to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant argued it had paid the plaintiff in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the defendant failed to prima facie demonstrate proper denial of payment for services billed under CPT codes 97026 and 97016. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding these specific CPT codes was denied.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentCPT CodesWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewInsurance LawMedical BillingAcupunctureSuffolk CountyPayment Dispute
References
3
Case No. ADJ7912541 ADJ7912544
Regular
May 13, 2013

PHILLIP HO vs. PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal because taking the matter off calendar for further record development did not cause significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The judge recommended denial, finding the defendant's argument regarding Government Code §911.2 and claim presentment to be inapplicable to a Labor Code §132a discrimination claim. The Board agreed that no definitive findings on the merits had been made and emphasized the need for completed discovery regarding the applicant's ability to return to work. The denial means the case will proceed with further record development rather than being removed from the regular process.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJLabor Code §132aGovernment Code §911.2AOE/COEMandatory Settlement ConferencePQMEDiscoveryIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Friedar v. Government of Israel

Samuel Friedar, a New York citizen, sued the Government of Israel and its branches for failing to compensate him for medical costs and expenses incurred after being injured while serving in the Israeli Army in 1948. Friedar alleged breach of contract, intentional withholding of information, negligent loss of files, and wrongful conversion of funds. The Government moved to dismiss, claiming sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1604 and that the action was barred by the Act of State doctrine. The Court found that the Government was entitled to sovereign immunity, rejecting Friedar's arguments for exceptions based on waiver or commercial activity. Furthermore, even if jurisdiction existed, the Court would dismiss the case under the Act of State doctrine, citing the impropriety of reviewing a foreign state's internal administrative activity, especially regarding military and veterans' benefits. The Government’s motion to dismiss was granted.

Sovereign ImmunityAct of State DoctrineMotion to DismissForeign Sovereign Immunities ActFSIAGovernmental ImmunityCommercial Activity ExceptionVeterans' BenefitsJurisdictionInternational Law
References
13
Case No. Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 Consolidated
Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.

This case involves appeals concerning the consolidation and venue of two actions arising from a fatal car accident in Broome County. Plaintiff Paul Schiffman, executor of the deceased Helds' estates, and plaintiff Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), the Helds' insurer, initiated separate actions against defendant Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company in Monroe County. Uniroyal moved to consolidate the actions and change venue to Broome County, citing witness inconvenience. The Supreme Court denied Uniroyal's motion regarding venue. The appellate court found special circumstances warranted deviation from the general venue rules, reversing the lower court's decision and setting venue for the consolidated actions in Broome County. An appeal from a motion for reconsideration was dismissed.

Venue ChangeConsolidationProducts LiabilityNegligenceWrongful DeathFatal AccidentWitness InconvenienceAppellate ReviewDiscretionary AbuseBroome County Venue
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pelham Council of Governing Boards v. City of Mount Vernon

This case addresses a special proceeding initiated by the Pelham Council of Governing Boards, an unincorporated entity comprising the Villages of Pelham and Pelham Manor, the Town of Pelham, and the Pelham Union Free School District. The petitioner sought to annul a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Mount Vernon in January 2000, which rezoned a 14.55-acre site for the Sanford Boulevard Redevelopment Project. The core issue was the petitioner's standing to bring the action. The court examined associational standing, noting that while three of the four member municipalities might have individual standing under the Westchester County Administrative Code, the Pelham Union Free School District would not. Ultimately, the court determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate proper representation of its members' views or a necessity for organizational standing in this context, granting the respondents' defense and dismissing the petition for lack of standing.

Organizational StandingAssociational StandingLand UseZoningMunicipal LawCapacity to SueEnvironmental Review (SEQRA)Mount Vernon City CouncilPelham MunicipalitiesSchool District Standing
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

District 2 Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass'n v. Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc.

District 2, a marine engineers union, sued Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc. (PRMMI) to compel arbitration after PRMMI terminated their collective bargaining agreement and discharged union members. PRMMI argued the agreement was terminable at will, while District 2 maintained it was still in effect, terminable only by the union. The court found both interpretations unpersuasive, ruling the agreement's extension implied a reasonable period for good faith negotiations and required reasonable notice for termination. Therefore, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment and PRMMI's motion to dismiss, ordering a factual hearing to determine the effectiveness of the termination, while making accrued benefit claims immediately arbitrable.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementContract TerminationLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionUnionEmployerGood Faith NegotiationsReasonable Notice
References
6
Case No. GRO 017747 GRO 017748 GRO 019264
Regular
Jul 17, 2007

CRAIG ANTISTA vs. JORDANOS; CIGA By Its Servicing Facility INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES For CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition for removal, rescinding a previous order compelling arbitration. The Board found that CIGA's reimbursement claim against TIG for successive injuries was not a mandatory arbitration matter under Labor Code Section 5500.5, but rather a matter governed by Insurance Code Section 1063.2. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on CIGA's reimbursement petition.

CIGARemovalArbitrationContributionReimbursementInsurance Code Section 1063.2(b)Labor Code Section 5500.5WCJSuccessive InjuriesCumulative Injury
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 08220 [192 AD3d 859]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2021

Cruz v. 1142 Bedford Ave., LLC

The case involves Maximo Cruz, who sustained left hand injuries while operating a table saw at a Brooklyn construction site. He sued 1142 Bedford Avenue, LLC, J. Vasquez Meat Corp., and 2 Big Meadow Lane, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law and Industrial Code provisions related to workplace safety. The Appellate Division modified a Supreme Court order, denying 2 Big Meadow's motion for summary judgment by finding triable issues regarding its 'owner' status under Labor Law § 241 (6). Furthermore, the court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on liability against 1142 Bedford Avenue, LLC, and J. Vasquez Meat Corp., concluding that the malfunctioning table saw without proper safety features was the proximate cause of the injuries. This decision reaffirms the nondelegable duty of owners and contractors to ensure a safe work environment and comply with specific safety regulations.

Construction accidentPersonal injuryLabor Law Section 241(6)Industrial CodeSummary judgment motionOwner liabilityProximate causeTable sawWorkplace safetyAppellate Division
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2021

Matter of Suhr v. New York State Dept. of Civ. Serv.

Petitioner Daniel R. Suhr requested records from the New York State Department of Civil Service under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), specifically seeking employee names and home zip codes. Respondent partially denied the request, withholding home zip codes citing privacy exemptions. Suhr then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, where the Supreme Court partially granted his application, ordering the disclosure of the zip codes. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that home zip codes are functionally equivalent to an address for FOIL purposes. The court concluded that disclosing home zip codes, when paired with employee names, constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Public Officers Law §§ 87(2)(a) and 87(2)(b), outweighing the minimal public interest in such information.

FOILPublic Officers LawPrivacy ExemptionHome Zip CodesState EmployeesCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewGovernment TransparencyData DisclosurePersonal Privacy
References
34
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04794 [231 AD3d 762]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2024

Shewprasad v. KSK Constr. Group, LLC

The plaintiff, Melvin Shewprasad, appealed an order denying his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 241 (6). Shewprasad was allegedly injured when steel railings fell on him at a construction site in Brooklyn. He claimed violations of Industrial Code provisions 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2) and 23-2.1 (a) (1). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff failed to prima facie establish the applicability of the cited Industrial Code provisions to the circumstances of his case. Specifically, the court noted that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2) (tripping hazards) was not shown to be applicable, and the plaintiff did not eliminate all factual issues regarding whether the accident occurred in a "passageway, walkway, stairway or other thoroughfare" as required by 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (a) (1).

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentIndustrial CodeTripping HazardMaterial StorageProximate CauseStatutory ViolationAppellate Review
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 5,199 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