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. ADJ862717 (LAO 0688164)
Regular
Oct 13, 2010

MICHAEL WORDEN vs. GARDENA POLICE DEPARTMENT, CORVEL CHINO, ADMINSURE DIAMOND BAR

This case involves Michael Worden's petition for reconsideration before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Board is dismissing the petition because it was not properly verified as required by Labor Code section 5902. Even if it had been verified, the Board would have denied the petition on its merits, adopting the Administrative Law Judge's reasoning. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationNot VerifiedLabor Code Section 5902DismissalReport and RecommendationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJMeritsGardena Police DepartmentCorvel Chino
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Michael B.

This appeal concerns six-year-old Michael B., born with cocaine toxicology and placed in foster care with his foster parents (appellant foster mother and Quintín L.). Following a prior reversal by the Appellate Division, which mandated a best-interests hearing, the Family Court awarded custody to Michael's natural father. The Appellate Division now reverses this decision, finding that the child's best interests are served by awarding custody to the foster parents. The court cited the child's strong bond with his foster parents, the natural father's deficient parenting, lack of emotional support, and potential for emotional and physical harm. The case is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a hearing to determine the father's visitation rights.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyBest Interests of ChildFoster CareChild NeglectPsychological EvaluationFamily LawAppellate ReviewParental FitnessVisitation Rights
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07702
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2018

Findlater v. Catering by Michael Schick, Inc.

The plaintiff, Christopher Findlater, sued Catering by Michael Schick, Inc., for personal injuries sustained when a food rack fell on him. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions, claiming Findlater was an employee. Findlater cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting defendant's negligence and his status as an independent contractor. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion and granted Findlater's cross-motion, concluding he was an independent contractor. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, finding that the question of Findlater's employment status created a factual dispute that must be resolved by the Workers' Compensation Board. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's determination of negligence against Catering by Michael Schick, Inc. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for new determinations pending the Board's decision.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawIndependent Contractor StatusSummary JudgmentNegligenceAppellate ReviewRemittalEmployment LawFactual DisputeExclusivity Provisions
References
4
Case No. CV-23-1648
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2025

Matter of Ava OO. (Michael NN.)

This is an appeal from a Family Court order adjudicating children neglected and directing the father, Michael NN., to undergo sex offender treatment. Michael NN. and the mother, Leanna MM., consented to a neglect finding after allegations of domestic violence and child sexual abuse by the father. A key condition was for the father to complete a sex offender evaluation. Although the father submitted an evaluation, the Family Court deemed it insufficient as it was not from the named evaluator, was perfunctory, and lacked a crucial section completion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding a sound and substantial basis in the record for not returning the youngest child to the father's care until he obtains a proper sex offender evaluation and engages with recommended treatment. The court also ruled an argument regarding an expired order of protection as moot.

Family LawChild NeglectAppellate ReviewSex Offender EvaluationDispositional OrderBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court Act Article 10Consent OrderMootnessParental Rights
References
13
Case No. 2016-2500 Q CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2019

People v. Coger (Michael)

The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the conviction of Michael Coger for attempted criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation and harassment in the second degree. Coger had appealed a judgment from the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County, following a nonjury trial. The core of the appeal involved the trial court's denial of a missing witness charge concerning a non-testifying police partner, which Coger argued was crucial given the sole testifying officer's alleged inconsistent testimony and the defense's contradictory witnesses. The Appellate Term found that Coger's arguments regarding the missing witness charge were largely unpreserved for appellate review. Furthermore, the court determined that even if preserved, the absent officer's testimony would have been cumulative, and any error in not drawing a negative inference was harmless in the context of a nonjury trial.

Criminal AppealMissing WitnessCumulative EvidenceHarassment Second DegreeAttempted Criminal ObstructionAppellate ReviewNonjury TrialWitness CredibilityHarmless ErrorPreservation of Issue
References
25
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 22200 [75 Misc 3d 60]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2022

People v. Washington (Michael)

In People v Washington, the Supreme Court, Appellate Term, reversed Michael Washington's conviction for attempted assault and harassment. The Criminal Court had allowed the prosecution to introduce the complainant's prior statements to the police and a domestic incident report, despite the complainant not testifying, which the Appellate Term ruled violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The court found that the People failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that Washington caused the witness's unavailability, as required after a Sirois hearing. As the complainant's out-of-court statements were the sole evidence against Washington, the error was not harmless, leading to the dismissal of the accusatory instrument. Presiding Judge Aliotta dissented, contending that the People had provided sufficient evidence of defendant's unlawful influence.

Criminal ProcedureConfrontation ClauseHearsay EvidenceWitness TamperingDomestic Violence CasesAppellate ReversalSixth AmendmentEvidentiary ErrorSirois HearingAttempted Assault
References
10
Case No. CV-23-0097
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Michael Linane

This case involves an appeal by Gristede's Food Inc. and its workers' compensation carrier from decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board. Claimant Michael Linane had established workers' compensation benefits for neck and back injuries. The carrier alleged claimant violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by misrepresenting his physical abilities, presenting surveillance videos. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board found no violation of § 114-a, affirming benefits. The Board also denied the carrier's application for reconsideration. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed both Board decisions, concluding that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence and its denial of reconsideration was not arbitrary and capricious.

Workers' CompensationMisrepresentationFalse StatementSurveillance VideoPhysical AbilitiesMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceReconsiderationFull Board ReviewAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. CV-24-1279
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Michael Howard

Claimant Michael Howard appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his request to amend his claim to include bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Howard sustained multiple injuries in a 2018 assault, and his claim was later amended for various conditions. His treating physician, Ranga Krishna, diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in 2021, linking it to the 2018 accident. However, the carrier's consultant found a bilateral wrist sprain but no causally related carpal tunnel syndrome after examinations in 2021 and 2023, citing a lack of corroborative clinical findings despite EMG results. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board credited the carrier's consultant, denying the amendment due to insufficient credible evidence of causation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its factual determinations and assessments of medical witness credibility, which were supported by substantial evidence.

Carpal Tunnel SyndromeCausation DisputeMedical Opinion ConflictCredibility of Medical WitnessesSubstantial Evidence ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board AffirmanceClaim Amendment DenialBilateral Wrist InjuryElectromyography FindingsAppellant Burden of Proof
References
8
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04118
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2021

Denisco v. Uysal

Plaintiff Michael Denisco commenced a legal malpractice action against defendants Michael D. Uysal et al., who had previously represented him in a workers' compensation claim. Denisco's workers' compensation claim was denied by a hearing judge and affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board, as his alleged injuries were found not to be work-related. Denisco then sued his former attorneys, alleging they failed to conduct adequate discovery, which led to the denial of his workers' compensation benefits. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the malpractice complaint. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, concluding that Denisco's allegations regarding causation in the legal malpractice claim were speculative and conclusory, thus granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

Legal MalpracticeWorkers' Compensation ClaimDismissal of ComplaintAppellate ReviewCausation in MalpracticeSpeculative AllegationsCPLR 3211 (a)Summary JudgmentTrial PracticeProfessional Negligence
References
8
Case No. 536065
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Michael Dipippo

The claimant, Michael DiPippo, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied his request to amend an existing work-related injury claim to include the consequential amputation of his right leg. The Board found the medical proof insufficient to establish a causal connection between the initial work injury and the subsequent amputation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the claimant, despite his personal experience and research, did not qualify as a medical expert. The court also noted that medical opinions must demonstrate a probability of the underlying cause, not just a possibility, to satisfy the burden of proof for establishing a causal nexus.

Workers' CompensationAmputationCausal NexusMedical EvidenceExpert TestimonyBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimBoard DecisionThird Judicial Department
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 717 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