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

Romaine v. Cuevas

Petitioner filed an improper practice charge against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging that Level I supervisors were performing work previously exclusive to Level II supervisors, specifically zone supervision, booth audits, and investigations. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found a violation for zone supervision but not for the other tasks. PERB subsequently reversed the ALJ's decision regarding zone supervision, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish exclusivity. The petitioner then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination. The court, reviewing PERB's decision for substantial evidence, found that the petitioner did not meet its burden of demonstrating exclusivity for any of the disputed tasks due to significant overlap in supervisor duties. Consequently, PERB's determination dismissing the improper practice charge was confirmed.

improper practicepublic sector laborsupervisory rolesjob dutiesexclusivityCPLR article 78PERBNYCTACivil Service Lawzone supervision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weinfeld v. HR Photography, Inc.

The plaintiff, injured at a wedding by a videographer (Vladimir Kataiev) hired by HR Photography, Inc. (HR), sued HR for vicarious liability and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. HR moved for summary judgment, arguing Kataiev was an independent contractor. The Supreme Court granted HR's motion, finding Kataiev an independent contractor and no evidence of HR's negligence. This appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that HR successfully demonstrated Kataiev's independent contractor status based on factors like using his own equipment, receiving cash payments without benefits, and HR exercising only minimal control. The court also found no evidence that HR knew of Kataiev's propensity for the conduct that caused the injury.

Vicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee RelationshipControl TestTort Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S & D Trading Academy, LLC v. Aafis, Inc.

Plaintiffs S & D Trading Academy, LLC, and S & D Global Trading, Inc. (collectively, "S & D") brought an action against AAFIS, Inc., Helen Shih, and Marty Shih for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. Defendant AAFIS filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, improper venue, and *forum non conveniens*, arguing that the case should be heard in China. The court found that AAFIS had sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to establish specific jurisdiction for both claims, as the contract was negotiated, formed, and partially performed in Texas, and the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets began in Texas. The court also concluded that exercising jurisdiction in Texas would align with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, considering Texas's interest in the dispute and the convenience for the plaintiffs. Therefore, the court denied all of AAFIS's motions to dismiss.

Personal JurisdictionForum Non ConveniensBreach of ContractTrade Secrets MisappropriationMotions to DismissMinimum ContactsDue ProcessSpecific JurisdictionService of ProcessImproper Venue
References
37
Case No. 07-05-0208-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2005

Curtis Benard Robbins v. State

Appellant Curtis Bernard Robbins was convicted of improper photography or visual recording and sentenced to two years in a state jail facility. He filed a notice of appeal on June 7, 2005, challenging his conviction. However, his sentence was imposed on March 9, 2005, making the statutory deadline for filing the notice of appeal April 8, 2005, or April 23, 2005, with a timely extension motion. As the notice of appeal was filed well beyond this period, it was deemed untimely. Consequently, the appellate court dismissed the purported appeal for want of jurisdiction, as a timely perfected appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite.

JurisdictionTimeliness of AppealNotice of AppealCriminal ProcedureImproper PhotographyVisual RecordingAppellate DismissalWant of JurisdictionTexas Court of AppealsPost-Conviction Writ
References
1
Case No. 11-11-00077-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2013

Joel Ramirez v. State of Texas

Joel Ramirez was convicted of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence after a bench trial and sentenced to forty-five years imprisonment due to a prior felony conviction. He appealed the conviction and sentence on four issues. The case originated from Ramirez taking photographs of young girls in a store and then discarding a digital media card when confronted by a witness, subsequently leading to his arrest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the conviction for tampering with evidence. It also found no abuse of discretion in denying Ramirez's motion for continuance or his request to withdraw his jury waiver. Furthermore, the court declined to address the constitutionality of the improper photography statute, as Ramirez was not indicted or convicted under that specific charge in this case.

Criminal LawTampering with Physical EvidenceImproper PhotographySufficiency of EvidenceJury WaiverMotion for ContinuanceAppellate ReviewConstitutional VaguenessDigital Media CardFelony Enhancement
References
15
Case No. ADJ4158530 (LBO 0325085) ADJ332706 (LBO 0325079)
Regular
Jul 23, 2013

VICTORIA ANTUNEZ vs. SEASIDE PRINTING CO., CALIFORNIA CASUALTY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, PACIFIC NATIONAL INSURANCE, CIGA, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

The Board granted reconsideration regarding a defendant's petition challenging findings of industrial injury and the nature of a communication with an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME). The Board affirmed findings of compensable injury for one period and no injury for another, but amended the awards to clarify that a letter from CIGA to the AME was improper, though not an ex parte communication. The Board found the letter constituted additional information improperly sent without affording the other party an objection opportunity, leading to exclusion of a supplemental report. Jurisdiction was reserved over costs and sanctions related to this improper communication.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Ex Parte CommunicationLabor Code Section 5412
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2001

Fonville v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which, upon reargument, adhered to a prior decision to dismiss a medical malpractice claim against the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC). The claim alleged that HHC's emergency medical services (EMS) improperly treated the decedent. The appellate court reversed the order, reinstating the claim concerning improper treatment by EMS workers. The court reasoned that although municipalities generally have immunity for governmental functions, once an affirmative action is voluntarily undertaken, it must be performed with due care. Consequently, the claim of improper treatment was reinstated, while allegations of nonfeasance remained dismissed.

Medical MalpracticeMunicipal ImmunitySpecial RelationshipVoluntary UndertakingDue CareCPLR 3211(a)(7)Motion to DismissClaim ReinstatementAppellate ReviewEMS Negligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ziccarelli v. NYU Hospitals Center

Plaintiff Jeffry Zic-carelli filed suit against NYU Hospitals Center and several individual defendants, alleging FMLA interference and retaliation, improper disclosure of medical information, negligence, gross negligence, and New York City Human Rights Law violations. The plaintiff claimed he was pressured to work during FMLA leave and that his medical records were improperly accessed. The court granted motions to dismiss FMLA and improper disclosure claims against individual defendants but denied dismissal for negligence and gross negligence claims against NYU. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend was partially denied for futility but granted for leave to include additional factual allegations on certain counts.

FMLA InterferenceFMLA RetaliationMedical Information DisclosureNegligenceGross NegligenceMotion to DismissLeave to AmendEmployment LawWorkers' Compensation PreclusionEconomic Reality Test
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halprin v. State

Appellant, one of the "Texas Seven" prison escapees, was convicted of capital murder for the killing of a police officer during a robbery and sentenced to death. On appeal, he raised nineteen points of error, including claims that the trial court improperly excluded mitigating evidence, erroneously denied challenges for cause to veniremembers, and allowed improper commitment questions during voir dire. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the exclusion of mitigating evidence was not an abuse of discretion as it was hearsay and cumulative. The court also determined that any error in denying challenges for cause or permitting certain voir dire questions was harmless, as the appellant still had peremptory challenges available and the questions were not improper commitment questions.

Capital MurderPrison EscapeRobberyMitigating EvidenceHearsayBusiness Records ExceptionVoir DirePeremptory ChallengesCommitment QuestionsAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Syracuse v. Public Employment Relations Board

This case involves the City of Syracuse's unilateral implementation of procedures to terminate General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits for firefighters. Two firefighters were injured and receiving benefits; one reported late and left early for light duty, the other refused to report. The City held hearings and terminated their benefits, prompting the Syracuse Fire Fighters Association (Union) to file an improper practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging a violation of the Taylor Law. The Administrative Law Judge initially dismissed the charge, but PERB reversed this decision, finding that the procedures for terminating such benefits are a subject of mandatory bargaining. The City then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination. The court confirmed PERB's determination, holding that the City's unilateral implementation of benefit termination procedures constituted an improper practice and that a City Charter's notice of claim provision did not apply to improper practice charges filed with PERB.

Taylor LawCivil Service LawGeneral Municipal Law § 207-aImproper Practice ChargeMandatory BargainingCollective Bargaining AgreementDue ProcessLight Duty AssignmentNotice of ClaimCPLR Article 78 Proceeding
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 2,737 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