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

Johns v. AMC Beauty Salon

Petitioner Angelo Johns claimed an unapproved sublease from AMC Beauty Salon for psychic office space at 465 Lexington Avenue, New York. AMC surrendered the entire premises to Sol Goldman Investments, LLC (SGI) on June 2, 2010, representing no other occupants were present. Johns, who paid cash rent to AMC and avoided SGI detection, returned from vacation to find the premises locked. The court found Johns's testimony not fully credible regarding his regular presence and SGI's knowledge of the sublease. SGI credibly testified they were unaware of the sublease and saw no evidence of Johns's occupancy during a walk-through. Concluding Johns purposely hid his occupancy and SGI had no knowledge of it, the court dismissed the petition.

Landlord-TenantSubleaseVoluntary SurrenderOccupancy RightsUnapproved SubleaseCommercial LeasePsychic BusinessEvictionNew York LawCredibility Findings
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re John Lack Associates, LLC

John Lack Associates, LLC, an agency placing waiters and bartenders, was audited by the Department of Labor, which determined these workers were employees, making John Lack liable for unemployment insurance contributions. This determination was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence of John Lack's control over the workers. The court noted that workers could refuse jobs, often worked for other agencies, provided their own equipment, and were supervised and directed by the client at events, who also paid their remuneration through John Lack. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractorUnemployment insurance contributionsAgency controlRight to controlRemittedAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor Law
References
5
Case No. ADJ4222164 (VNO 0413943)
Regular
Jun 08, 2010

JOHN PIERRE vs. THE BOEING COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied John Pierre's Petition for Reconsideration against The Boeing Company. The Board adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report. No specific details of the underlying claim or the judge's reasoning are provided in this order. This order officially denies the petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDJOHN PIERRETHE BOEING COMPANYINSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIAAIG CLAIMS SERVICESINC.ADJ4222164VNO 0413943ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATIONPetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2006

In re John T.

Holliswood Care Center appealed an order awarding attorneys' fees against it in a guardianship proceeding for John T. The Supreme Court had initially found John T. competent but awarded fees to the petitioner, temporary guardian, and Mental Hygiene Legal Service, citing Holliswood's "reprehensible actions" in detaining Mr. T. Holliswood argued it was not given notice that the guardianship hearing would determine attorney's fees against it and was not afforded an opportunity to present evidence regarding its actions, which it claimed were based on safety concerns, not Mr. T.'s competency. The appellate court reversed the order, holding that the Supreme Court improperly proceeded with the hearing and improvidently awarded attorneys' fees without proper notice and opportunity to be heard for Holliswood. Furthermore, the court found that the award of attorneys' fees against Holliswood was not authorized by Mental Hygiene Law article 81 nor justified under common law exceptions.

GuardianshipAttorneys' FeesMental Hygiene LawIncapacitated PersonAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessNotice RequirementNursing Home DetentionElderly CareCompetency Evaluation
References
17
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01338
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Matter of Pierre

This case involves W. Marilynn Pierre, a suspended attorney, and the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Pierre was previously suspended in 2017 due to admissions of professional misconduct, including commingling client funds, using her escrow account as an operating account, and evading tax liens. She also converted/misappropriated guardianship funds and failed to satisfy a judgment. Now, the parties have filed a joint motion for discipline by consent, stipulating to facts that confirm violations of rules 1.15 (a), (b), (e), and 8.4 (c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Mitigating factors include her cooperation, current work as a social worker, restitution efforts, and mental health issues (bulimia, depression, ADD) affecting her practice, for which she is undergoing monitoring. The Court grants the joint motion and imposes a five-year suspension, retroactive to August 8, 2017.

Attorney misconductprofessional ethicsattorney disciplineescrow account misusecommingling fundsmisappropriationtax liensmental healthmitigating factorssuspension
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brian v. Johns

Petitioner Carol Brian initiated an action against respondent Frank T. Johns to establish paternity for her child, Sara, born March 4, 1973, and to secure child support. A court-ordered blood grouping test, conducted at the respondent's expense following an order on January 2, 1974, excluded Mr. Johns as the father. Unsatisfied with these results, the petitioner requested a second blood test, but the court denied this motion after reconsideration, citing respondent's opposition and the lack of statutory authority in Section 532 of the Family Court Act for ordering a second test over objection. The court ruled that the trial should proceed, requiring the respondent to present the performing doctor as a witness to explain the test's basis and procedure, allowing the petitioner to question its accuracy. The decision acknowledged a potential margin of error in such tests and affirmed the petitioner's opportunity to rebut the blood test evidence, as it is not the sole determinant of paternity.

paternityblood testFamily Court Actevidencetrialmotion deniedchild supportmedical examination accuracyserologyhemotology
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Johns-Manville Corp. (In Re Johns-Manville Corp.)

This case involves motions by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Boston and Maine Corporation (B&M) for mandatory withdrawal of reference from the Bankruptcy Court. The plaintiffs sought rulings that their claims against Johns-Manville Corporation, related to asbestos waste cleanup costs under CERCLA, were not barred by the automatic bankruptcy stay. The District Court examined whether the resolution of these adversary proceedings required substantial and material consideration of both the Bankruptcy Code (Title 11) and other federal laws, specifically CERCLA. Finding that significant interpretation of both federal statutes was necessary to determine when the claims arose and their interaction with the automatic stay, the court granted the motions.

BankruptcyWithdrawal of ReferenceCERCLAAutomatic StayEnvironmental LawFederal JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationContributionIndemnificationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. 522199
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2016

Matter of Pierre (Commr. of Labor)

The claimant, Jean G. Pierre, appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The Board found that Pierre, a security officer, was discharged after threatening and yelling profanities at a supervisor and lunging in a threatening manner, requiring restraint and police intervention. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding of disqualifying misconduct. The court highlighted that threats against a coworker, profane language, and insubordination to a supervisor constitute misconduct, aligning with the employer's policy against threatening violence.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployee MisconductWorkplace ViolenceInsubordinationAdministrative AppealSecurity ServicesEmployment TerminationAppellate DivisionNew York State LawSubstantial Evidence
References
5
Case No. 534697
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Philome Pierre

Philome Pierre, a freight delivery driver, sought workers' compensation benefits after being diagnosed with COVID-19. The employer and carrier disputed the claim, arguing it wasn't a covered accident arising from employment. After an independent medical examination and hearings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding that contracting COVID-19 in the workplace constitutes a compensable accidental injury under the Workers' Compensation Law. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Pierre contracted COVID-19 during his employment.

COVID-19Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentSubstantial EvidenceCausationMedical EvidenceFreight DriverWorkplace HazardAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. ADJ3093533 (MON 259690) ADJ676332 (MON 257523)
Regular
May 15, 2009

PEARLENE POWELL vs. SO. CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL CARE PROGRAM; ST. JOHN'S HEALTH CENTER, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board denied Kaiser's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's permanent disability was 100% and not subject to apportionment to St. John's employment. St. John's petition for reconsideration was granted in part to correct a procedural error. The Board amended the prior decision to reinstate the applicant's January 11, 2005 Amended Findings, Award and Order, confirming the prior findings.

ApportionmentAgreed Medical ExaminerSubstantial EvidencePermanent DisabilityReconsiderationPetitionFindings and OrderAmended FindingsAwardOrder
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 915 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