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. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Herring

County Court granted Joseph F. Cawley enhanced assigned counsel fees under "extraordinary circumstances" according to County Law § 722-b, exceeding statutory limits. The County of Broome appealed, arguing a question of statutory construction regarding whether "foregoing limits" in § 722-b applied to hourly rates or only total amounts. The appellate court found this argument unpersuasive, viewing it as an attempt to appeal a discretionary award. Citing precedent, including Matter of Werfel v Agresta and Matter of Director of Assigned Counsel Plan of City of N. Y. (Bodek), the court affirmed that trial court orders on enhanced fees are administrative and not subject to appellate judicial review on the merits. Consequently, the appeal brought by the County of Broome was dismissed with costs.

Assigned Counsel FeesExtraordinary CircumstancesStatutory InterpretationAppellate JurisdictionJudicial DiscretionCounty Law 722-bAdministrative ReviewJusticiable ControversyHourly RatesFee Schedules
References
4
Case No. OAK 0273736 OAK 0331633 OAK 0284934
Regular
Oct 01, 2007

PAULETTE JOHNSON vs. DAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT and ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a disqualification petition against WCJ Lilla J. Rados. Defendants claimed improper assignment to a mandatory settlement conference and bias due to a statement about applicant's supervisor's testimony. The Board found the statement insufficient to demonstrate bias and noted that procedural assignment rules do not constitute grounds for disqualification.

DisqualificationMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJ BiasLabor Code Section 132aCumulative TraumaFindings and AwardCode of Civil Procedure Section 641Appearance of BiasWCAB Rule 10347Section 5700
References
1
Case No. ADJ9259156
Regular
Jan 05, 2017

SIDNEY SWANSON vs. LAS VEGAS LA EXPRESS, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the trial judge's findings. The Board found that a stipulation regarding the assignment of a lien from Mesa Pharmacy to Javlin Three LLC did not sufficiently address enforceability under Labor Code section 4903.8. Due to insufficient development of the record regarding the assignment's validity and Mesa's current business status, the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings. This ensures due process by allowing for the presentation of evidence and potential testimony on these crucial issues.

Mesa PharmacyJavlin Three LLClien claimantassignment of rightsreimbursementLabor Code Section 4903.8standingMinutes of Hearingevidentiary hearingPetition for Reconsideration
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

5 Awnings Plus, Inc. v. Moses Insurance Group, Inc.

Plaintiff sued an insurance agent (defendant) for breach of contract and negligence. The defendant had arranged for plaintiff to assume a workers' compensation policy from a nonparty, Awnings Plus, Inc. (API), which unbeknownst to plaintiff, had outstanding premiums. Plaintiff paid these premiums after being sued by NYSIF and then sought to recover these funds from the defendant. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed, granting the defendant's motion and dismissing the complaint. The court found the negligence claim barred by the three-year statute of limitations, as the injury occurred when the assignment was executed. For the breach of contract claim, the court ruled that plaintiff only made a general request for 'best policy value' coverage, which was insufficient to trigger a special duty for the defendant to advise on additional coverage or implications of the assignment.

Insurance Agent LiabilityBreach of ContractNegligenceStatute of LimitationsWorkers' Compensation InsuranceAssignment of InterestInsurance Policy PremiumsDuty to AdviseSpecific Request for CoverageAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Drayton v. Hasl

This Article 78 proceeding reviewed a determination by the Commissioner of the Nassau County Department of Public Works dated August 14, 1984, which dismissed the petitioner, Mr. Drayton, from employment as a laborer due to six specifications of misconduct. The court found insufficient evidence to sustain three specifications: refusing assigned duties on September 16, 1983, and being absent without authorization or abusing entitlements on sundry dates. The court determined that hearsay testimony alone was insufficient for the first specification and that attendance records did not support the latter two. However, the court upheld findings that the petitioner threatened his supervisor and was under the influence of alcohol on September 16, 1983, and was frequently late for work. Consequently, the original penalty of dismissal was vacated, and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner for the imposition of a new penalty appropriate to the sustained specifications.

MisconductDismissalCPLR Article 78Administrative HearingHearsay EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceVacated PenaltyRemitted for PenaltyPublic WorksNassau County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Newsom-Lang v. Warren International, Inc.

Plaintiff Francis Newsom-Lang sued Warren International, Inc. alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York Executive Law Section 296. Plaintiff claimed she suffered age discrimination through adverse job search assignments, denial of a promotion to Director of Research, and termination of her employment. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of employer status under ADEA and insufficient evidence for discrimination claims. The Court, assuming defendant met the employer definition, found plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for job search assignments and failed to rebut defendant's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for denying promotion and termination with evidence of age discrimination pretext. Consequently, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing plaintiff's federal and state claims with prejudice, but denied defendant's request for attorneys' fees.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentADEANew York Executive LawFailure to PromoteWrongful TerminationRetaliationPrima Facie CasePretext
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 201, United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry v. Shaker, Travis & Quinn, Inc.

This case arises from a work assignment dispute between Local 38 and Local 201 regarding the fabrication of plastic inspection boxes for Shaker, Travis & Quinn, Inc. Local 201 sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Shaker from assigning work to Local 38 and to compel tripartite arbitration. Shaker moved to stay arbitration, citing a pending NLRB 10(k) proceeding, while Local 38 moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court denied Shaker’s stay, affirming the national policy favoring arbitration. Local 201’s injunction request was denied due to insufficient proof of irreparable harm. Local 38’s motion to dismiss was also denied, with the court asserting jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Ultimately, the court granted Local 201's request for tripartite arbitration, deeming it the most sensible and efficient method for resolving the three-sided dispute.

work assignment disputelabor union disputearbitration injunctionpreliminary injunctionsubject matter jurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActSection 301 LMRAtripartite arbitrationNational Labor Relations BoardNLRB 10(k) proceeding
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bembry v. Darrow

Plaintiff, referred to only as "Plaintiff," an African American, filed a federal lawsuit against Mohawk Valley Community College (MVCC) and supervisors Philip Scott, Michael Darrow, and John Mazurowski, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and New York Human Rights Law. The complaint detailed various incidents from 1992 to 1996, including a derogatory racial comment, discriminatory work assignments, surveillance, attempts to solicit false complaints, denied promotions, and retaliation for filing grievances, notably an injury sustained during a heavy-duty assignment on January 30, 1996. Senior District Judge Munson granted the defendants' summary judgment motion, dismissing the entire complaint. The court found most claims time-barred, deemed the hostile work environment allegations insufficient, and concluded the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for promotion discrimination or retaliation, noting a lack of evidence to support the claims.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentEmployment LawCivil Rights ActWorkers CompensationTime Barred ClaimsPrima Facie Case
References
43
Showing 1-10 of 3,036 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