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. 2018 NY Slip Op 06625
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2018

Matter of Kenneth J. v. Lesley B.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Family Court order that suspended all visitation and contact between a father, Kenneth J., and his child. The Family Court had granted summary judgment to the mother, Lesley B., without a hearing. The Appellate Division found this improper, emphasizing that modification of custody or visitation requires a hearing, except in emergencies. The court further ruled that the Family Court improperly considered unsworn, uncertified, and hearsay reports and letters from mental health services and therapists, which were inadmissible and did not justify the drastic measure of suspending parental contact. The matter was remanded, and the father's petitions for enforcement and modification were restored, along with the mother's petition.

Family LawCustodyVisitationSummary JudgmentDue ProcessIn Camera InterviewAdmissibility of EvidenceHearsayForensic EvaluationChild's Best Interests
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gottlieb v. Kenneth D. Laub & Co.

This case examines whether Labor Law § 198 (1-a), which grants attorney’s fees in wage claims, applies broadly to all wage claims or is restricted to violations of Labor Law article 6. Plaintiff Seymour Gottlieb, a former real estate salesman, sought unpaid commissions from Kenneth D. Laub & Company, asserting a common-law contract claim and a violation of Labor Law § 198. The lower courts awarded attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that the attorney’s fees and liquidated damages remedies under Labor Law § 198 (1-a) are exclusively for wage claims based on substantive violations of Labor Law article 6. The Court emphasized that the statute’s plain language, legislative history, and purpose, along with common-law principles against awarding attorney’s fees, limit its applicability to claims arising directly from article 6.

Labour LawWage ClaimAttorney's FeesLiquidated DamagesContract ClaimStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentCommon LawArticle 6Employment Law
References
6
Case No. 535098
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Kenneth Attreed

The claimant, Kenneth Attreed, sustained knee injuries at work and filed for workers' compensation benefits. Initially, a WCLJ established the claim and granted temporary total and partial disability awards. Following a subsequent hearing where the employer's carrier raised issues of voluntary withdrawal and lack of labor market attachment, the Workers' Compensation Board modified the WCLJ's determination, finding that the claimant voluntarily removed himself from the labor market and thus had no compensable lost time from September 28, 2021, onward. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, modified the Board's decision, agreeing that the claimant's withdrawal was voluntary but finding that the Board erred in determining the start date of no labor market attachment. The court ruled that the applicable date should be October 25, 2021, when the claimant testified, not September 27, 2021, when the issue was raised. The matter was remitted to the Board to address eligibility for indemnity benefits subsequent to the claimant's October 20, 2021, surgery.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketLabor Market AttachmentTemporary Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityAppellate DivisionThird Judicial DepartmentClaimant AppealIndemnity BenefitsKnee Injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ8938458
Regular
Jun 16, 2014

JUAN SOLANO RAMIREZ vs. ELAINE BELL CATERING, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved a Petition for Reconsideration filed by former attorney Kenneth Martinson concerning a dismissed claim. Martinson argued the claim was dismissed before he could pursue his lien for fees. However, Martinson subsequently withdrew his Petition for Reconsideration and also requested the dismissal of his lien. Consequently, the Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration as withdrawn and dismissed Martinson's lien by operation of law.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien DismissalLabor Code Section 5710Appeals Board Rule 10770(g)Appeals Board Rule 10770(h)Dismissal of ClaimLien ClaimantWithdrawal of PetitionAttorney Fees
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 1997

In re Sadie K.

The petitioner sought to terminate the respondent's parental rights due to permanent neglect of his three children, Sadie, Kenneth, and Christina. Family Court found that the respondent had sexually abused Christina and neglected Sadie and Kenneth, ordering his participation in various therapeutic programs, including a sex-offender program. Despite the petitioner's diligent efforts to reunite the family, the respondent failed to meaningfully participate, particularly by denying the sexual abuse, not engaging in the sex-offender program, and failing to maintain contact with his children. The Family Court terminated parental rights for Sadie and Kenneth (Christina had reached the age of majority). The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, concluding that clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that the petitioner made diligent efforts and the respondent failed to plan for the children's future.

Permanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationSexual Abuse DenialChild Welfare AgencyFamily Court OrderAppellate AffirmationDiligent EffortsParent-Child ReunificationSex Offender ProgramParenting Skills
References
9
Case No. ADJ13262420
Regular
Oct 20, 2025

JOSE MORALES vs. KENNETH C. RAY, COMPASS DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, INC., BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted defendant Kenneth C. Ray's petition for reconsideration of an Amended Findings and Award (F&A) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 15, 2025. The original F&A had found that applicant Jose Morales was employed by Kenneth C. Ray and sustained an industrial injury but was not employed by Barrett Business Services, Inc. The Board rescinded the F&A and substituted a new F&A, affirming Morales's employment by Kenneth C. Ray and not by BBSI. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings under a new WCJ to determine issues regarding employment with Compass Development and Construction Inc., the participation of the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund, and the specific body parts injured.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings and Awardarising out of and in the course of employmentemploymentliabilitythird-party administratorsubstantial evidencecausationdeposition testimony
References
18
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05929
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2018

Matter of Pelsinger

The Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District moved to confirm a Special Referee's report which sustained 13 charges of professional misconduct against attorney Kenneth S. Pelsinger. The charges included dishonesty, fraud, misappropriation of client funds, and failure to cooperate with investigations. Pelsinger sought mitigation due to untreated major depressive disorder and attention deficit disorder, proposing public censure or a monitoring program. The Appellate Division, Second Department, found that Pelsinger failed to establish a causal link between his disorders and the misconduct, noting his extensive disciplinary history, including a prior three-year suspension for similar offenses. The court determined that Pelsinger's conduct was intentional and deceptive, and ordered his immediate disbarment.

Attorney MisconductDisbarmentProfessional ResponsibilityMisappropriation of FundsFraudFailure to CooperateDisciplinary HistoryMitigating FactorsGrievance CommitteeDefault Judgment
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04609
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2022

Dyer v. Amchem Prods. Inc.

In this asbestos exposure litigation, defendant American Biltrite, Inc. (ABI) sought summary judgment on the issue of causation. The plaintiff's decedent, Kenneth C. Dyer, died from lung cancer and claimed exposure to asbestos from ABI's vinyl floor tiles. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order denying ABI's motion for summary judgment. The court found that ABI successfully made a prima facie case that the decedent was not exposed to sufficient quantities of respirable asbestos from its product to cause his lung cancer. The plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding specific causation, as the expert's conclusions lacked a reliable correlation between exposure levels and the causation of lung cancer, thereby failing to satisfy the standards set by Parker and Nemeth.

Asbestos exposureLung cancerSummary judgmentCausationToxic tortExpert testimonySimulation studiesRespirable asbestosVinyl floor tilesOccupational exposure
References
8
Case No. ADJ2500591 (MON 0340362) ADJ1965867 (LBO 0302615)
Regular
May 13, 2011

Kenneth Tarvin vs. ROADWAY EXPRESS, Administered by GALLAGHER BASSET SERVICES

This case involves a lien claimant, Dr. Kenneth Webb, seeking reconsideration of a decision that limited his reimbursement for applicant Kenneth Tarvin's medical treatment. Dr. Webb argued for reimbursement for more than the allowed 24 visits, citing two separate injuries and post-surgical treatment exemptions. However, the Appeals Board denied his petition, finding insufficient substantial medical evidence to rebut the established treatment guidelines or support treatment for the cumulative trauma claim. The Board affirmed the original finding of entitlement to payment for 22 treatments at the reasonable value of services rate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantFindings of Fact and OrderReasonable Value of Services (RVS)Labor Code 4604.5(d)(1)24 visit capIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaCompromise and Release (C&R)
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farren v. Shaw Environmental, Inc.

Plaintiff Ann Farren, administratrix of Kenneth Farren's estate, sued Defendant Shaw Environmental, Inc. for Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law violations, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation. Kenneth Farren, a laborer's foreman, reported sexual harassment by a coworker, Albert Puma, including sexually explicit and threatening remarks. Defendant disciplined Puma with a one-week suspension, but Farren eventually left the job due to alleged escalating harassment and was later terminated during a workforce reduction. The court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no evidence of gender-related harassment or disparate treatment, and no triable issue of fact regarding retaliation or constructive discharge. The court concluded that Puma's comments were expressions of animosity rather than sexual desire and that Farren's absenteeism was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination.

Gender DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawConstructive DischargeExhaustion of Administrative RemediesDisparate Treatment
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 164 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