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. ADJ16022807
Regular
Aug 08, 2025

ISRAEL MORALES ROJAS vs. CHRISTENSEN BROTHERS GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant Israel Morales Rojas petitioned for reconsideration of a WCJ's July 7, 2023, decision that denied his entitlement to a specific post-acute residential rehabilitation program. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the matter. While the reconsideration was pending, the Board was advised that a proposed settlement had been reached. Consequently, the Board rescinded the WCJ's original decision and returned the case to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderBurden of ProofReasonableness of TreatmentCasa Colina Transitional Living CenterInterdisciplinary Post-Acute Residential Rehabilitation ProgramSettlementRescindedReturned to Trial Level
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kotlyarsky v. New York Post

Plaintiffs Boris and Alla Kotlyarsky and Reliable Rehabilitation Center, Inc. sued defendants New York Post, NYP Holdings, Inc., Susan Edelman, and Devlin Barrett for libel. The action stemmed from a December 11, 2000 article in the New York Post that alleged Boris Kotlyarsky was under federal indictment and described Reliable Rehabilitation Center as a 'medical mill.' Plaintiffs claimed they were promised a retraction, which was later withdrawn, leading them to delay filing their lawsuit until August 12, 2002. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the one-year statute of limitations for libel had expired on December 12, 2001. Plaintiffs invoked equitable estoppel, equitable tolling, and promissory estoppel to argue the statute was tolled. The court found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate due diligence in pursuing the retraction and thus, the doctrines of estoppel or tolling were not applicable. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

defamationlibelstatute of limitationsequitable estoppelequitable tollingpromissory estoppelsummary judgmentdue diligenceretractionNew York Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hansen v. Post

The petitioner, a child protective worker, sought custody of Christopher Post, whose parents, Rose and William Post, had a documented history of child abuse and neglect, leading to the removal of seven other children from their care. Christopher had also been involved in two prior neglect proceedings. The parents exhibited severe deficiencies in parenting skills, an inability to address Christopher's emotional disturbances, and a history of rejecting assistance. After voluntarily placing Christopher with the petitioner, who became his psychological parent, they abruptly cut off contact. The Family Court found extraordinary circumstances, justified judicial intervention, and granted custody to the petitioner, a decision which the appellate court subsequently affirmed.

Custody DisputeParental UnfitnessChild NeglectExtraordinary CircumstancesFamily Court Act Article 6Child Protective ServicesAppealParental RightsPsychological ParentEmotional Disturbance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Neal v. Archdioceses of New York

In this dissenting opinion, Judge Crane argues for the reversal of an order that granted summary judgment, dismissing a complaint against the Archdioceses of New York and Pius 12 Residential Services — Chester Campus Program. The core issue revolves around the defendants' alleged negligent supervision, leading to an assault where student William Cook broke Israel O'Neal's jaw. Judge Crane contends that the defendants failed to demonstrate a lack of actual or constructive notice regarding Cook's documented violent tendencies, citing extensive behavioral records. Contrary to the majority's view of an impulsive attack, the dissent details a prolonged altercation between the students, suggesting supervisory staff had ample opportunity to intervene. Therefore, the dissenting judge concludes that the motion for summary judgment should have been denied, and the complaint reinstated.

Negligent SupervisionSummary Judgment MotionDissenting OpinionSchool LiabilityStudent InjuryActual NoticeConstructive NoticeAssault and BatteryProximate CauseEducational Institutions
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1995

In re Jordan Rehabilitation Service, Inc.

Jordan Rehabilitation Service, Inc., providing medical and vocational rehabilitative services, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board assessed additional unemployment insurance contributions, finding that specialists hired by Jordan were employees, not independent contractors, between 1989 and 1991. The court reviewed whether there was substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion of an employer-employee relationship. Key factors included Jordan's control over recruitment, screening, compensation, billing, and contractual restrictions on specialists. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Board's decision, determining that Jordan exercised sufficient overall control to establish an employer-employee relationship and thus was liable for the contributions.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorRehabilitation ServicesLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceControl TestJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeDepartment of Labor
References
8
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

People v. Cephas

This case involves an appeal concerning a defendant's motion for resentencing. The lower court initially denied the motion, citing the defendant's extensive criminal history and past failures despite completing rehabilitation programs. However, the appellate court determined that the defendant's recent exemplary conduct during imprisonment, including the completion of several work and substance abuse treatment programs, coupled with highly favorable evaluations from corrections officials, outweighed their prior criminal record. Additionally, the defendant's acceptance into a two-year residential treatment program provided a new level of support. Consequently, the appellate court exercised its discretion to specify an appropriate resentence, concluding that substantial justice did not warrant the denial of resentencing. The People's arguments challenging the defendant's statutory eligibility for resentencing were found not cognizable on this appeal.

Resentencing AppealCriminal ProcedureExemplary ConductRehabilitationSubstance Abuse TreatmentJudicial DiscretionAppellate ReviewSentencing ReformCriminal HistoryPanel Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1996

Castellano v. City of New York

Approximately 2,000 disabled former New York City police officers filed 16 consolidated actions, alleging that the practice of providing supplemental benefits to police officers who retire after twenty years of service while denying those same benefits to officers who retire due to a disability discriminates against them in violation of Titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as well as various state laws. The defendants, various individuals and entities involved in administering the New York City Police Department benefit programs, moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs are not protected parties under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, as they are not 'qualified individuals with a disability' and are seeking preferential rather than nondiscriminatory treatment. The ADEA claims were dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lastly, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, leading to their dismissal as well.

Disability discriminationADA claimsRehabilitation Act claimsADEA claimsPolice officersRetirement benefitsSupplemental benefitsMotion to dismissQualified individual with a disabilityEmployment discrimination
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Stein

The case concerns a petitioner seeking reimbursement from the City of New York for the tuition and maintenance of a handicapped child, Ronnie, at a residential facility and a summer program. The court previously established that financially able parents are responsible for maintenance costs. The primary novel issue addressed was whether the summer program constituted a necessary educational expense or an extra benefit. The court determined that Ronnie's summer attendance was an extension of his educational process, not recreational, and thus a necessary expense. Consequently, the petitioner was granted reimbursement for tuition for both the regular school year and the summer program, but denied reimbursement for maintenance at the residential facility.

Handicapped Education LawSpecial Needs ChildrenTuition CostsParental ContributionSummer Educational ProgramsResidential FacilityFamily Court JurisdictionEducational ReimbursementOrganic Brain SyndromeMental Retardation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 1982

Claim of Lee v. Weiss & Sons Paper & Twine Co.

This case is an appeal from a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board which held that the claimant was entitled to additional compensation under section 15 (subd 3, par v) of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The claimant sustained a work-related injury to his right knee in 1975, resulting in a 75% loss of use of his right leg. The employer and its carrier appealed the board’s decision, contending that the claimant did not participate in a rehabilitation program and did not prove that his impaired earning capacity was solely due to his injury. The court affirmed the board’s decision, finding that the claimant's physical condition prevented him from completing a rehabilitation program, but his five visits to the rehabilitation bureau constituted participation. The court also found sufficient evidence that the impairment of earning capacity was solely due to the injury, supported by the claimant's testimony and a physician's assessment.

Rehabilitation ProgramLoss of UseEarning Capacity ImpairmentWork-Related InjuryAppellate DecisionMedical ExaminationRight Knee InjuryAdditional CompensationStatutory InterpretationSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 2,043 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