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

Reitman v. Mills

Petitioner's license to practice as a certified social worker was revoked in 1988 after pleading guilty to sodomy in the second degree. Following probation, he sought restoration of his license, citing rehabilitation efforts. Despite a peer subcommittee's recommendation for restoration, the Committee on the Professions and the Board of Regents recommended denial, a decision upheld by the Commissioner of Education. Petitioner's CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging this denial was dismissed by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, with the court finding no abuse of discretion given the gravity of the offense, the petitioner's admitted ongoing struggles with sexual attraction to adolescent males, and concerns regarding public safety, especially as he intended to operate a private practice from his home.

License RestorationProfessional MisconductSodomyFelony ConvictionRehabilitationPublic SafetyJudicial ReviewAdministrative DiscretionSocial WorkerAppellate Affirmation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Board of Regents of University

Petitioner, a licensed optometrist in New York since 1981, faced eight specifications of professional misconduct between 1980 and 1985 while employed by American Vision Center. Charges included negligence, gross negligence, practicing beyond authorized scope by administering Neosporin, and unprofessional conduct for delegating responsibilities to unlicensed staff and failing to wear a name tag. A Hearing Panel found petitioner guilty, recommending a license suspension and fine. The Regents Review Committee modified these findings, and the respondent further narrowed the period of charges. Petitioner challenged the determination, alleging denial of due process due to lack of specificity and delay. The Court rejected the due process claims, finding charges specific and no actual prejudice from delay. While the Court found substantial evidence for negligence, unauthorized practice, and unprofessional conduct, it annulled the finding of gross negligence. Despite this annulment, the Court upheld the original penalty, modifying the determination only to reflect the removal of the gross negligence finding, and otherwise confirming the decision.

Optometry license suspensionProfessional misconductUnlicensed practiceDelegation of professional responsibilitiesGross negligenceDue processAdministrative reviewCPLR Article 78Education LawRegents Review Committee
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Consentino

The claimant, employed at Ford Nursing Home, was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits after voluntarily leaving employment. She initially practiced as a registered professional nurse (RN) under a temporary permit, but failed the licensing examinations. Her employer offered her a licensed practical nurse (LPN) position with substantially the same duties but at a lower hourly wage. The claimant rejected this offer solely due to the reduced pay and resigned. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the Industrial Commissioner's initial determination that she voluntarily left employment without good cause. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that dissatisfaction with a lower pay scale for suitable alternative employment does not constitute 'good cause' under the Labor Law.

Voluntary QuittingGood CauseUnemployment BenefitsWage DisparityLicensureProfessional NurseLicensed Practical NurseLabor Law InterpretationSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative Determination
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 1988

In re Nurse Care Registry, Inc.

Nurse Care Registry, Inc., an agency providing health care personnel, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that classified its workers as employees rather than independent contractors, making Nurse Care liable for unemployment insurance contributions. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence of Nurse Care's control over key aspects of the services provided by the workers. This control included client contact, worker wages, and billing/collection, which were deemed indicative of an employer-employee relationship. The court relied on precedent establishing that such control warrants an employment finding, despite workers having full-time positions elsewhere and the agency not directly supervising daily work.

unemployment insuranceemployer-employee relationshipindependent contractoradministrative lawappellate reviewlabor lawagency staffingcontrol testsubstantial evidencehealth care industry
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Carillo & Local 1115, Joint Board Nursing Home & Hospital Employees Division

This memorandum addresses a labor dispute between Carillon House Nursing Home and Local 1115 Joint Board concerning a contract breach by Carillon regarding wage and benefit increases. The Union initially filed an unfair labor practices charge with the NLRB, which resulted in a cease and desist order against Carillon in January 1977, later enforced by the Second Circuit. Concurrently, the Union demanded arbitration, prompting Carillon to move to stay arbitration in state court, a proceeding the Union removed to this federal court. The Court denied Carillon's motions to remand to state court and to stay arbitration, finding federal jurisdiction and that prior NLRB proceedings do not preclude arbitration. The Court granted the Union's motion to compel arbitration, emphasizing the broad arbitration clause in the contract and the arbitrator's wide latitude in fashioning remedies.

Labor disputeArbitrationContract breachCollective bargaining agreementUnfair labor practicesNLRB enforcementFederal jurisdictionStay of arbitrationCompel arbitrationConcurrent jurisdiction
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 1995

Morales v. Morales

In a divorce action, the husband appealed portions of a judgment concerning child support, private parochial school tuition, division of a savings/security plan, pension plan, and the valuation of the wife’s practical nurse license. The appellate court modified the judgment regarding the private school tuition, directing the husband to pay 68% instead of the full amount. Crucially, the court also modified the valuation of the wife’s nursing license, rejecting the wife's expert's flawed methodology and adopting the husband's expert's valuation of $98,000 in enhanced earning capacity, crediting the husband with a $9,800 share. The court found the wife's expert's valuation speculative and not founded in economic reality. The judgment, as modified, was affirmed.

Equitable DistributionMarital PropertyEnhanced Earning CapacityProfessional License ValuationChild SupportPrivate School TuitionAppellate ReviewExpert TestimonyValuation MethodologyDivorce Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huntington Hospital v. Huntington Hospital Nurses' Ass'n

Huntington Hospital initiated an action under the Federal Arbitration Act to partially vacate an arbitration award, while the Huntington Hospital Nurses’ Association cross-petitioned to confirm it. The dispute originated from the Hospital unilaterally granting two nurses, Betty Evans and Lynn Meyer, longevity pay credits exceeding the ten-year cap stipulated in their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The arbitrator found the Hospital violated the CBA's sections on pay and exclusive bargaining rights. The arbitrator mandated the Hospital roll back excess credits and recover overpayments. The District Court denied the Hospital's petition, dismissing arguments regarding public policy, manifest disregard for law, and lack of award finality, ultimately confirming the arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawFederal Arbitration ActWage DisputesLongevity PayUnion RightsPublic Policy ExceptionManifest Disregard of LawContract Interpretation
References
22
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06800
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2021

Harris v. Pelham Parkway Nursing Care & Rehabilitation Facility LLC

Plaintiff Mariantha Harris appealed an order from Supreme Court, Bronx County, denying her cross motion for summary judgment dismissing an affirmative defense based on the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the order, granting Harris's cross motion. Harris successfully established prima facie that she was not an employee of Pelham Parkway Nursing Care and Rehabilitation Facility LLC at the time of her accident, but rather was solely employed by nonparty Clear Choice, P.C. The defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim that Harris was its special employee, with its reliance solely on the plaintiff performing duties at its nursing home being insufficient. Additionally, the court found the doctrine of judicial estoppel inapplicable because plaintiff had not secured a judgment in her favor in the prior proceeding, and the defendant's prematurity argument was improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

Summary JudgmentExclusive RemedyEmployment StatusSpecial EmployeeSlip and FallJudicial EstoppelAppellate ProcedureCross MotionAffirmative DefenseClear Choice P.C.
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Futterman v. New York State Nurses Ass'n

The plaintiff, an officer of the New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA) Council of Nursing Practitioners at Erie County Medical Center, was found guilty by NYSNA of conduct detrimental to the Association for attempting to decertify NYSNA and replace it with a rival union between May 31, 1983, and July 5, 1983. The plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the expulsion, arguing that the right to support a rival union is protected by Civil Service Law § 208 (subd 1, par [a]) and cannot be abridged. The court notes that prior cases, like Ballas v McKiernan, did not address discipline against union officers for such activities. Citing PERB's interpretation and Federal precedents, the court found that expelling an officer for aiding a competing organization is not an improper union practice. The court concluded that a labor union should be permitted to expel an officer working to certify a rival union, especially when continued employment is not conditioned on union membership and fair representation is guaranteed. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed.

Union DisciplineDeclaratory JudgmentPublic Employment Relations Board (PERB)Civil Service LawDual UnionismFreedom of AssociationUnion Officer ExpulsionCollective BargainingEmployee OrganizationsUnfair Labor Practice
References
19
Case No. ADJ7781219
Regular
Nov 19, 2019

CHARLES SINCLAIR vs. RICHARD J. DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; Legally Uninsured; administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/ STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This case involves Charles Sinclair, a Licensed Vocational Nurse, who sustained an injury to his hands, wrists, and upper extremities on December 21, 2010, resulting in complex regional pain syndrome. The WCJ found Sinclair to be 100% permanently disabled based on the opinions of treating physicians Dr. Baker and Dr. Pelton, and vocational expert Enrique Vega, despite conflicting opinions from other medical examiners. The defendants petitioned for reconsideration, arguing a lack of substantial evidence and insufficient apportionment to prior injuries. The Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's findings and adopting the WCJ's report, which found the defendant failed to meet their burden of proof regarding apportionment.

Complex Regional Pain SyndromeVocational ExpertApportionmentSubstantial EvidenceAgreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical ExaminerPermanent DisabilitySynergistic EffectPain ManagementCredibility Determination
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,872 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