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. 2022 NY Slip Op 00289
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2022

Matter of Personal-Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc. v. City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, which denied a petition to overturn a decision by the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). The CDRB had found that Personal-Touch Home Care's claim to use unspent Medicaid funds for fiscal year 2007 to offset workers' compensation assessment expenses from 2009-2010 was foreclosed. The court agreed that the State Department of Health (DOH) rationally interpreted its regulations, concluding that these retroactive assessments, levied due to financial mismanagement of a self-insurance trust, were not

Workers' CompensationMedicaid FundsSelf-Insurance TrustFiscal YearRetroactive AssessmentAdministrative LawAgency DeferenceContract DisputeHealth Care AgenciesFinancial Mismanagement
References
4
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. ADJ9845740
Regular
Dec 18, 2019

RICHARD OKUNIEWICZ vs. CHRISTOFFERSON TRANSPORTATION, QBE-PRAETORIAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an employer's petition for removal challenging a judge's order denying a motion to compel an in-person vocational evaluation. The Appeals Board denied the petition, treating it as a reconsideration request because the underlying order resolved threshold issues. Although the decision was final regarding threshold matters, the Board reviewed the discovery dispute under the extraordinary removal standard. The majority found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm from denying the in-person evaluation, as a remote evaluation was deemed sufficient.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings and OrderMedical-Legal EvaluationCompelSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmThreshold IssueInterlocutory IssueVocational Evaluation
References
7
Case No. 526722
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2019

Matter of Persons v. Halmar Intl., LLC

Claimant Matthew Persons appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by exaggerating his condition and failing to disclose volunteer firefighter activities, leading to disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, as it was based on speculation, surmise, and mischaracterizations of claimant's activities and medical records. The court noted that claimant was forthcoming about his volunteer work and that video surveillance did not conclusively contradict his reported injuries. Consequently, the decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawFraudExaggerated ConditionVolunteer Firefighter ActivitiesWage Replacement BenefitsSubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyPsychiatric DisabilityVideo SurveillanceRemittal
References
6
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
Jul 17, 1995

In re Hammons

Three proceedings were initiated under Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law to appoint guardians for Hazel, Neil, and Nancy Ehmke due to concerns about their personal needs and property management. The Ehmkes resided in a severely dilapidated home in Jamaica Estates, New York, infested with flies and clutter, lacking heat, and housing numerous dogs. Psychiatric evaluations by Dr. Ralph Speken and Dr. Christopher Bailey, along with a court evaluator's report, detailed the unsanitary living conditions, the Ehmkes' inability to manage their finances, and their refusal to accept help. The court found clear and convincing evidence that the Ehmkes were likely to suffer harm due to their functional limitations in providing for personal needs and property management, despite their intelligence. Consequently, the court granted the petition, appointing the New York Foundation for Senior Citizens, Guardian Services, Inc. as guardian with tailored powers to ensure the least restrictive intervention.

GuardianshipIncapacityMental Hygiene Law Article 81Elder CareProperty ManagementPersonal NeedsHoarding BehaviorFinancial DistressCourt InterventionFamily Dynamics
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2012

Ali v. State

The claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims that dismissed their claim for personal injuries. The incident occurred on February 24, 2009, at the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board office when a security guard, reacting to news of his grandmother's death, punched a wooden bench causing it to fall on the claimant. The claimant subsequently filed a personal injury claim against the State of New York. The Court of Claims granted the defendant's application to dismiss the claim, determining that the security guard was acting solely for personal motives unrelated to his employment, and his conduct was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant, thus precluding vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Personal InjuryRespondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentForeseeabilityEmployee MisconductClaim DismissalCourt of Claims DecisionAppellate ReviewNegligence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Tyler S.

The case involves a petition filed on October 12, 2001, alleging that the respondent mother neglected her seven-year-old child, Tyler. The allegations include failure to address Tyler's ADHD and special education needs, inadequate shelter due to unpaid bills, marijuana use, and an untreated mental illness described as paranoid and delusional with a possible personality disorder. The petitioner, Administration for Children's Services (ACS), seeks to compel a mental health evaluation of the mother. The court examines the applicability of Family Court Act and Civil Practice Law and Rules regarding such compulsory evaluations, distinguishing from previous case law. The court concludes that it has the authority to order a pre-fact-finding mental health evaluation, finding it material and necessary given the respondent's history of non-compliance with voluntary treatment and the conflicting previous diagnoses. The court orders the respondent to submit to an evaluation by a psychiatrist.

Child NeglectMental Health EvaluationParental Mental IllnessADHDFamily Court ActCPLR Article 31Testimonial EvidenceNontestimonial EvidenceForensic ExaminationDiscovery Procedures
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vullo v. Sheets (In Re Sheets)

The debtors, James and Irene Sheets, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and exempted their two pre-petition personal injury actions under New York State law. After the lawsuits settled post-petition, the trustee initiated an adversary proceeding to claim the proceeds as property of the bankruptcy estate. The court determined that because the personal injury actions were validly exempted from the estate at the commencement of the case, their proceeds did not subsequently become estate property. Citing legal precedent, the decision emphasized that exempted property and its resulting proceeds revert to the debtors' control, not the trustee's. Consequently, the trustee's application for a turnover order seeking these personal injury recoveries was denied.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7 BankruptcyProperty ExemptionsPersonal Injury ProceedsBankruptcy EstateAdversary ProceedingTurnover OrderNew York Exemption LawDebtor RightsPost-Petition Settlements
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boles v. Dormer Giant, Inc.

This case addresses whether Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 shields an employer from third-party liability for contribution or indemnity when the employer failed to secure workers' compensation for an injured employee. Plaintiff Douglas Boles was injured in a scaffolding collapse while working for Personal Touch Home Improvements, Inc., a subcontractor of Dormer Giant, Inc. Boles sued Dormer Giant, which then brought a third-party action against Personal Touch. The lower courts dismissed Dormer Giant's third-party complaint, concluding Personal Touch was protected by Section 11. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that an employer must comply with Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 by securing compensation for employees to benefit from the protections of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 against third-party liability, reinforcing the legislative intent behind the 1996 Omnibus Workers’ Compensation Reform Act.

Workers’ Compensation Law § 11Employer LiabilityThird-Party ContributionThird-Party IndemnityGrave InjuryFailure to Secure Workers' CompensationLabor Law § 240(1)Scaffolding AccidentSubcontractor LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,686 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