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

Coleman v. Town of Hempstead

Plaintiff Paul Coleman, an employee of the Town of Hempstead Department of Sanitation, was suspended for 24 days after failing a random drug test he alleges was flawed. He filed claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for procedural and substantive due process violations, along with state law claims for negligence and malpractice, against the Town, its officials, and various private entities involved in the drug testing, including Medical Review Officers (MROs) and a laboratory. Defendants University Services (an MRO) and LabCorp Laboratories (the testing lab) moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing they are private entities not acting under color of state law for the § 1983 claims, and that LabCorp owed no duty to the plaintiff for the negligence claim. The Court denied both motions, finding that the plaintiff adequately alleged that LabCorp and University Services acted under color of state law, either through a close-nexus or symbiotic relationship with the Town. Regarding the negligence claim against LabCorp, the Court determined that New York law would recognize a common law duty of care owed by a drug testing laboratory to an employee in such circumstances, due to the significant and potentially devastating consequences of a false-positive drug test.

Drug TestingWorkplace Drug TestingDue Process ViolationSection 1983 ClaimNegligence ClaimMedical MalpracticeState Action DoctrinePrivate Entity LiabilityMotion to DismissUrine Sample
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Morton

Michael Wayne Morton, convicted of his wife's murder in 1987, sought post-conviction forensic DNA testing of various pieces of evidence under chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The district court partially denied his motion, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the denial of testing for evidence related to a separate murder and for fingerprint evidence, finding these did not meet the statutory requirements of being "secured in relation to the offense" or containing "biological material." However, the court reversed the denial for a blood-stained bandana recovered near the crime scene. The court concluded that if DNA testing on the bandana yielded exculpatory results (Christine's blood and a third party's DNA), there is a greater than 50% likelihood that Morton would not have been convicted, and thus remanded the case for further proceedings concerning the bandana.

forensic DNA testingmurder convictionappealcriminal procedureexculpatory evidenceblood-stained bandanaunidentified fingerprintscircumstantial evidencetime of deathunknown intruder theory
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2010

Commissioner of Social Services v. Dimarcus C.

The Family Court in New York County denied the appellant's motion for genetic testing and affirmed an order of filiation declaring the appellant to be the father of the subject child. The court found it was in the child's best interest to estop the respondent from denying paternity, as the respondent had consistently presented himself as the father to family, friends, and the child, providing support and care. Additionally, the 12-year-old child believed the respondent was his father. The court was not required to identify the biological father, having already dismissed a petition against another individual who was excluded by DNA testing, and a father-son relationship existed between the child and the respondent.

Paternity DisputeFiliation OrderEquitable EstoppelChild WelfareParental RightsGenetic Testing DenialAppellate ReviewFamily Court DecisionBest Interest of ChildImplied Paternity
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2006

Perez v. Munoz

The father appealed a Family Court order from Kings County, dated August 21, 2006, which denied his petition to modify a prior visitation order and for paternity testing. Specifically, he sought to have a social worker transport his children to his place of incarceration for visitation. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, stating that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel relief against an un-summoned social worker or agency. Additionally, the denial of paternity testing was upheld, as the proper procedure for challenging or establishing paternity, without a support order being sought, is through a separate Family Court Act article 5 proceeding.

CustodyVisitationPaternity TestingIncarcerationFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewJurisdictionFamily LawParental RightsJudicial Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jennings v. Minco Technology Labs, Inc.

Brenda L. Jennings sued her employer, Mineo Technology Labs, Inc., seeking to prevent the company from implementing a random drug-testing program for employees via urinalysis, arguing it violated common-law privacy rights. The company counterclaimed, asserting its plan was lawful. The trial court sided with the employer, declaring the plan lawful and enforceable, denying Jennings relief, and awarding attorney's fees to the company. On appeal, Jennings challenged both the lawfulness of the plan and the award of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, reasoning that 'at-will' employment allows employers to modify terms, and an employee's consent to testing, even if economically compelled, negates an unlawful invasion of privacy. The court also upheld the attorney's fees award, finding no abuse of discretion.

Employment LawDrug TestingPrivacy RightsAt-Will EmploymentDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefEmployer RightsEmployee RightsCommon LawContract Law
References
12
Case No. 2018-06-0433
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2019

Said, Medhat v. Communications Test Design, Inc.

Medhat Said alleged he suffered a cumulative trauma injury to his left shoulder while working for Communications Test Design, Inc. He sought medical benefits for unauthorized care and past temporary total disability benefits. The Court found Mr. Said likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that his left-shoulder condition arose primarily out of his employment. However, the Court denied the requested relief for payment of medical bills due to lack of authentication and supporting documentation. Temporary total disability benefits were also denied as evidence did not establish a causal connection between the injury and his inability to work, or the duration of disability.

Cumulative traumaShoulder injuryRepetitive motionMedical benefitsTemporary total disabilityCausationExpert medical opinionMedical bill authenticationWorkers' Compensation ClaimsExpedited hearing
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holtz v. E & E Drilling & Testing Co.

The Supreme Court erred in denying defendant E & E Drilling and Testing Company, Inc. (EEDT) permission to serve an amended answer. The proposed amendment sought to allege that workers' compensation benefits constitute the plaintiff's sole remedy. The appellate court ruled that leave to amend should be freely granted, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any prejudice. Furthermore, the court identified a factual dispute regarding the decedent's employment status at the time of the accident, which means the defendant's defense cannot be deemed meritless as a matter of law. Consequently, the original order was unanimously reversed, and the defendant's motion to serve an amended answer was granted.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAmended PleadingsAffirmative DefensesEmployment StatusSole Remedy DoctrineAppellate ReviewProcedural ErrorLeave to AmendMaterial Issue of FactDenial of Motion
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rivera v. North Central Bronx Hospital

The employer appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, arguing that the Board incorrectly interpreted Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-a (7) by mandating reimbursement to the claimant’s doctor for an EMG test. The employer contended that since the claimant failed to use a specified provider as per statutory notice, it should not be obligated to pay. However, the court found no statutory or historical support for nonpayment as a remedy, noting that the law aims to provide swift benefits to injured employees and prevent providers from collecting directly from workers. The court emphasized that allowing the employer to avoid payment would harm medical providers and deter their participation in the workers’ compensation system. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board’s decision, requiring the employer to pay its in-network rate to the claimant's doctor.

Workers' Compensation LawEMG test reimbursementEmployer appealStatutory interpretationMedical provider paymentClaimant medical expensesSelf-insured employersDiagnostic testsLegislative intentBoard decision affirmed
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,009 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