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. CA 10-01057
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2011

KUHN, JAMES C. v. CAMELOT ASSOCIATION, INC.

Plaintiff James C. Kuhn, an employee, sustained injuries when a Gradall forklift tipped over while he was working on the roof of a building owned by defendant Camelot Association, Inc. He initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action. The Supreme Court granted his motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court adhered to its prior decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, concluding that the plaintiff had established the absence of necessary safety devices and that the defendant failed to create a triable issue of fact regarding whether the plaintiff's own conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. A dissenting opinion argued that a triable issue of fact existed, as the plaintiff had access to a ladder but chose to use the forklift.

Worker's InjuryConstruction AccidentForklift IncidentSafety DevicesSummary JudgmentProximate CauseContributory NegligenceAppellate ReviewLabor Law ClaimPersonal Injury
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2013

Christopher C. v. Bonnie C.

This divorce action between Christopher C. and Bonnie C. addresses equitable distribution, spousal maintenance, and counsel fees. The defendant, Bonnie C., who has a court-appointed guardian due to mental and emotional difficulties, had separated from the plaintiff in 2003 and informally divided marital assets. The court ratified this prior asset division, noting the defendant had dissipated her share. Finding the defendant unable to work and self-support, and the plaintiff capable of employment despite his claims of disability, the court awarded the defendant non-durational permanent maintenance of $2,500 per month and substantial attorney's fees. The plaintiff's motion to suspend or refund temporary maintenance was denied.

DivorceSpousal MaintenanceEquitable DistributionGuardianshipMental Health IssuesAsset DissipationAttorney's FeesFinancial CapacityPermanent MaintenanceMarital Property
References
12
Case No. 2015-432 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2017

Oleg's Acupuncture, P.C. v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by GEICO General Insurance Company against Oleg's Acupuncture, P.C., concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The Appellate Term reversed an order from the Civil Court that had denied GEICO's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that GEICO had timely mailed denial of claim forms and had fully compensated Oleg's Acupuncture for services billed under CPT codes 97813 and 97814, in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services. The plaintiff failed to present a triable issue of fact in opposition to GEICO's evidence.

no-fault benefitsacupuncture servicesworkers' compensation fee schedulesummary judgmentCPT codestimely mailinginsurance claimassigneeAppellate TermCivil Court
References
4
Case No. 2016-910 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2018

Precious Acupuncture Care, P.C. v. Hereford Ins. Co.

This case concerns an action by Precious Acupuncture Care, P.C., as assignee of James Hough, against Hereford Insurance Company to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. Plaintiff sought the unpaid balance of five claims for services rendered between December 2013 and April 2014. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting that the amounts claimed exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Civil Court initially granted plaintiff's motion, ruling that defendant was precluded from the defense due to untimely denial. However, the Appellate Term reversed this decision, clarifying that under 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (g) (1) (ii); (2), for services rendered after April 1, 2013, payment is not due for fees exceeding permissible charges, irrespective of timely denial. Consequently, the Appellate Term vacated the prior order, denied plaintiff's motion, and granted defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentFee Schedule DefenseAppellate ReviewTimely DenialWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleMedical BillingInsurance LawCivil CourtAppellate Term
References
5
Case No. CA 15-00709
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2015

ANDERSON, ROBERT JAMES v. KERNAN, JAMES M.

Plaintiff Robert James Anderson initiated an action against James M. Kernan and Marlene Kernan, seeking damages for an alleged breach of a joint venture agreement. The purpose of this alleged venture was to develop a market for workers' compensation insurance coverage through professional employer organizations (PEO). The Supreme Court, Oneida County, granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, concluding that both Marlene Kernan and James M. Kernan made prima facie showings that they did not agree to enter into a joint venture with the plaintiff. The court further found that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, noting that an 'agreement to agree' on a general principle is unenforceable due to indefiniteness in contract law.

Joint Venture AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract LawIndefinitenessAgreement to AgreeWorkers' Compensation InsuranceProfessional Employer OrganizationsCivil Procedure
References
6
Case No. 2013-2706 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2016

NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

This case, NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., concerned an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County. The plaintiff, NYS Acupuncture, P.C., sought assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm, which had moved for summary judgment arguing full payment according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Civil Court initially granted State Farm's motion. On appeal, NYS Acupuncture, P.C. contended that the fee schedule reductions were improper. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the prior ruling, finding that State Farm adequately demonstrated it had fully compensated the plaintiff for acupuncture services based on the applicable workers' compensation fee schedule for services performed by chiropractors, referencing Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co.

Workers' Compensation Fee ScheduleNo-Fault BenefitsAcupuncture ServicesChiropractorsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeFee Schedule ReductionAssigned BenefitsMedical Billing
References
1
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00798 [224 AD3d 495]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Camrem C. (Lydia C.)

Lydia C. appealed a Family Court order that found she neglected her child, Camrem C., by inflicting or allowing physical harm. The Family Court's finding was based on extensive medical evidence showing the child had multiple welts, lacerations, and bruises in various stages of healing, indicating a pattern of corporal punishment. This medical evidence corroborated out-of-court statements made by the child to a paraprofessional, the Child Advocacy Center, and an ACS caseworker. The appellant's testimony, which attributed the injuries to a single incident, was deemed insufficient to account for the variety of injuries observed. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the neglect finding, concluding that the record supported the Family Court's decision and that the appellant, at a minimum, should have been aware of the injuries and acted to protect the child.

Child NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewPhysical HarmCorporal PunishmentMedical EvidenceOut-of-court StatementsCredibility FindingsParental ResponsibilityChild Protection
References
4
Case No. 26 NY3d 107 (2016)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2016

S.B. v. A.C.C.

This case addresses the definition of "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) for purposes of custody and visitation for unmarried couples. The New York Court of Appeals overrules its 1991 decision in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., which had limited parental standing to biological or adoptive parents. The Court now holds that a non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing if they can show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive and raise a child together. In Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., the Appellate Division's order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings under this new standard. In Matter of Estrellita A. v Jennifer L.D., the Appellate Division's order is affirmed, upholding standing based on judicial estoppel. This decision aims to address the unworkability of the Alison D. rule in light of evolving familial relationships, particularly for same-sex couples, and to protect the best interests of children.

Parental RightsCustodyVisitationSame-Sex CouplesNontraditional FamiliesEquitable EstoppelJudicial EstoppelPre-Conception AgreementDomestic Relations LawOverruling Precedent
References
28
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05500 [242 AD3d 829]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2025

DeMarco v. C.A.C. Indus., Inc.

The plaintiff, Peter DeMarco, suffered personal injuries when excavation walls collapsed at a Queens work site. He sued C.A.C. Industries, Inc., a contractor that provided a backhoe and operating engineer to his employer, the City of New York Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The Supreme Court, Queens County, partially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing claims under Labor Law § 200 and certain Labor Law § 241 (6) violations, while denying dismissal of the common-law negligence claim. The plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendant lacked authority to supervise for the Labor Law claims but failed to demonstrate a special employment relationship, leaving triable issues of fact regarding the common-law negligence claim and whether the defendant's excavation created or exacerbated the dangerous condition.

Excavation CollapseTrench SafetyLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSpecial EmploymentContractor NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary Judgment AppealDuty of Care
References
21
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01291 [169 AD3d 1240]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Matter of Logan C. (John C.)

This case involves an appeal by John C. from orders of the Family Court of Schuyler County, which adjudicated his children, Logan C. and another, to be permanently neglected and terminated his parental rights. The children were initially removed from respondent's custody after the daughter sustained severe injuries, leading to findings of abuse and neglect. Despite petitioner Schuyler County Department of Social Services' diligent efforts to provide services like mental health counseling and parent education, respondent failed to adequately plan for the children's future or address the underlying issues, including failing to engage in consistent mental health treatment and parent education, and maintaining contact with the caretaker responsible for the daughter's injuries. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found ample support for the Family Court's determination of permanent neglect and affirmed the termination of respondent's parental rights, concluding it was in the children's best interests given their progress in foster care and respondent's lack of substantial improvement. The court dismissed the appeal from the fact-finding order as non-dispositional, but reviewed the issues in conjunction with the appeals from the dispositional orders.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectChild AbuseAppellate ReviewFamily LawSocial Services LawDiligent EffortsReunification PlanBest Interests of ChildrenPsychological Evaluation
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 3,323 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