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
Jun 23, 1981

Claim of Sanginario v. County of Monroe Pure Waters Division

The Workers' Compensation Board denied medical fee payments to an intervenor-appellant for treatment provided to a claimant. The initial treatment for a right arm and shoulder injury was performed by a physician’s assistant not under the supervision of an authorized physician. Although the claimant received compensation benefits for disability, the Board refused to pay medical bills submitted by Dr. Choi, an orthopedic specialist associated with the intervenor. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the Workers' Compensation Law requires authorization for treatment providers and does not permit unsupervised care by physician's assistants. This ruling underscored the importance of statutory compliance regarding medical services reimbursement in workers' compensation cases.

Medical Fees DenialPhysician's Assistant SupervisionAuthorization for TreatmentWorkers' Compensation LawMedical Provider QualificationsStatutory ComplianceAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmedMedical Service ReimbursementOrthopedic Injury
References
1
Case No. 73 Civ. 1540
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 1980

Kirkland v. NY STATE DEPT. OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

This case, on remand from the Second Circuit, addresses the constitutionality of a new examination (No. 36-435) for correctional sergeants and a proposed 250-point score adjustment for minority applicants. Plaintiffs and defendants sought approval of the exam and summary judgment against intervenors who opposed the score adjustment and the job performance evaluation component. The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, granted both requests, finding the revised examination procedure compliant with EEOC Guidelines and federal anti-discrimination laws, and the job performance rating sufficiently objective under state law, concluding that the score adjustment was not an impermissible quota but rather served to balance the examination's validated procedure.

Employment DiscriminationCorrectional ServicesCivil Service ExamsAffirmative ActionSummary JudgmentEEOC GuidelinesTest ValidityMinority PreferenceJudicial ReviewFederal Court
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04776 [219 AD3d 1528]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2023

Matter of Wasserman v. Farkas

Sam Wasserman appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied his motion to confirm a rabbinical court arbitration award regarding condominium unit ownership. Intervenors Fidelity National Title Insurance Company and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company had successfully cross-moved to vacate the award. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision. It ruled that the intervenors had a right to intervene due to their substantial interest in the property's disposition and that the rabbinical court's arbitration award was irrational, lacking evidence to support Wasserman's ownership claim.

Arbitration AwardVacatur of AwardIntervention as of RightReal Property OwnershipCondominium DisputeRabbinical Court DecisionAppellate Division AffirmationIrrational Arbitration AwardConfession of JudgmentCPLR Article 75
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Logan Group, Inc.

This case involves an order from District Judge Mahon dismissing the claims of Intervenor Fidelity Funding (NC), Inc. due to a lack of federal jurisdiction. MCI Telecommunications Corporation originally sued The Logan Group, Inc. and Communication Specialties, Inc. (CSI) for unpaid telephone services. Fidelity intervened, alleging MCI failed to pay accounts receivable assigned by CSI and asserted claims of fraud and breach of contract. The Court determined that Fidelity was an intervening plaintiff, not an intervening defendant, and its claims were independent of the main action. Consequently, the court found no supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b), as the original jurisdiction was based solely on diversity, leading to the dismissal of Fidelity's claims without prejudice.

JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionInterventionRule 24(a)Intervening PlaintiffFederal CourtDismissalClaimsAccounts Receivable
References
16
Case No. M2009-01210-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2010

Eduardo SantAnder, American Home Assurance Co., Intervenor-Appellant v. Oscar R. Lopez

Plaintiff Eduardo Santander was involved in a motor vehicle accident during the course of his employment and filed a tort action against defendant Oscar R. Lopez. After settling a workers' compensation claim with his employer and its carrier, American Home Assurance Co. (AHAC), Santander reached a settlement in the tort case. Before judgment, AHAC sought to intervene to assert a subrogation lien on the tort recovery, but the Trial Judge denied the petition as untimely. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found the denial of intervention to be an abuse of discretion, reversed the Trial Court's judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the validity of AHAC's subrogation lien.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation LienInterventionTimelinessAbuse of DiscretionMotor Vehicle AccidentTort ActionUninsured/Underinsured Motorist CoverageAppellate ReviewRemand
References
13
Case No. 01-14-00135-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2015

Peter Hardsteen and Paulina Mayberg Hardsteen and Intervenor Texas Farm Bureau v. Dean's Campin Co.

This appeal arose from a summary judgment in favor of Dean's Campin' Co. on an indemnity claim against Peter and Paulina Hardsteen and their insurer, Texas Farm Bureau. The underlying dispute involved a recreational vehicle purchased by Peter Hardsteen from Dean that caught fire, leading to initial litigation against the RV manufacturer, Rexhall, and Dean. The Hardsteens settled with Rexhall, but continued claims against Dean for negligent repairs and Deceptive Trade Practices Act violations, in which Dean was found not liable. Dean subsequently sought indemnity from the Hardsteens, relying on a contractual indemnity provision in the Hardsteens-Rexhall settlement agreement. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the indemnity provision did not obligate the Hardsteens to indemnify Rexhall for Dean's claim, as Dean was not found liable to the Hardsteens. The case was remanded for judgment to be entered in favor of the Hardsteens and Texas Farm Bureau.

Summary JudgmentIndemnity ClaimContractual IndemnityStatutory IndemnityProduct LiabilityDeceptive Trade Practices ActContract InterpretationAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeSettlement Agreement
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 1981

Lindamood v. Link-Belt Corp.

This case addresses a motion filed by the Plaintiffs' attorney for an award of attorney's fees, to be paid out of the Intervenor First Employees Insurance Company's recovery in a settlement agreement. The attorney's claim was based on Article 8307, Section 6a of the Texas Worker’s Compensation and Crime Victims’ Compensation Law. The Court denied the motion, finding that the Intervenor's interest was actively represented by its own attorneys who actively participated in obtaining the recovery. Consequently, the Plaintiffs' attorney was not entitled to a portion of the Intervenor's subrogation recovery, especially given that the interests of the Plaintiffs and Intervenor were not always aligned and the Intervenor's counsel independently secured the full satisfaction of its subrogation claim.

Attorney's FeesWorker's CompensationSubrogationSettlement AgreementInterventionActive RepresentationTexas LawInsurance CarrierLegal FeesThird-Party Tortfeasor
References
2
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01011 [169 AD3d 1477]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2019

Matter of Riccelli Enters., Inc. v. State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd.

This case involves an appeal stemming from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, which had granted partial summary judgment to Riccelli Enterprises, Inc., et al., and 3679 River Road, Inc., et al. These parties were respondents and intervenors-respondents, respectively, while the State of New York Workers' Compensation Board and others were the appellants. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reviewed the appeal. However, prior to a full merits decision, the appeal was dismissed. The dismissal was a result of a stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for all parties involved on January 15, 2019.

Workers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionSummary JudgmentAppeal DismissalStipulation of DiscontinuanceOnondaga CountyJudiciary LawFourth DepartmentProceduralCase Dismissal
References
2
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 24179
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2024

Matter of City of New York v. Ball

The City of New York challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets, which found that Local Law 202 (banning the sale of foie gras in NYC) unreasonably restricts farming operations within agricultural districts, violating Agriculture and Markets Law § 305-a. Local Law 202 aimed to prohibit the sale of force-fed products due to animal welfare concerns, which the City viewed as inhumane, though it did not directly regulate on-farm practices. The State respondents and intervenor-respondent farms (La Belle Farm, Inc. and Hudson Valley Foie Gras) argued that Local Law 202, despite being an indirect sales ban, significantly impacted the economic viability of foie gras producers in agricultural districts by cutting off a major market. The court found that the Commissioner rationally determined Local Law 202 fell within the scope of Agriculture and Markets Law § 305-a, as its purpose and direct consequence were to indirectly command farms to alter their practices, which the City lacked direct power to do. Upholding the Commissioner's decision, the court denied the City's petition and dismissed the proceeding, concluding that the State's policy of promoting agriculture takes priority over local animal welfare concerns unless human health or safety is threatened, which was not the case here.

Local Law 202Foie Gras BanAgriculture and Markets LawFarm OperationsAgricultural DistrictsAnimal WelfareHome Rule PowersPreemptionSales BanJudicial Review
References
24
Case No. DC-15-604
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2015

City of Rio Grande City, Texas, and Joel Villarreal, Herman R. Garza III, Arcadio J. Salinas III, Rey Ramirez, and Dave Jones in Their Official Capacities v. BFI Waste Services of Texas, LP D/B/A Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley

BFI Waste Services of Texas, LP d/b/a Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley (Plaintiff) sued the City of Rio Grande, Texas and its elected officials (Defendants) after the City attempted to prematurely terminate its exclusive solid waste collection contract with Allied Waste and entered into an agreement with Grande Garbage Collection Co. (Intervenor/Plaintiff). Allied Waste sought a temporary injunction, arguing that the City's actions constituted a breach of contract and violated various constitutional rights, including the Contract Clause and Due Process. The District Court, presided over by Judge Migdalia Lopez, conditionally granted Allied Waste's request for a temporary injunction on November 10, 2015, restraining the City from interfering with Allied Waste's exclusive contractual rights. The defendants, including Grande Garbage Collection Co., are appealing this temporary injunction.

Contract DisputeExclusive FranchiseWaste ManagementMunicipal LawTexas LawConstitutional RightsDue ProcessInterlocutory AppealTemporary InjunctionBreach of Contract
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 128 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