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

Stankowski v. Kim

Plaintiff's decedent, Janusz Stankowski, was killed after being struck by a truck backing into Post & Taback's loading dock at the New York City Terminal Market. Plaintiff alleged negligence against Post & Taback for maintaining a dangerous condition (debris) and failing to control traffic, claiming the debris caused Stankowski to slip and be struck again. The IAS court denied Post & Taback's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, finding no admissible evidence of Stankowski slipping on debris and no duty for Post & Taback to maintain the area where the accident occurred or control traffic. The dissent argued that issues of fact remained regarding the debris contributing to the accident and Post & Taback's duty to clear the area close to its dock.

Summary JudgmentNegligencePremises LiabilityWrongful DeathAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulesHearsay EvidenceTraffic ControlLoading Dock AccidentDuty of Care
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hansen v. Post

The petitioner, a child protective worker, sought custody of Christopher Post, whose parents, Rose and William Post, had a documented history of child abuse and neglect, leading to the removal of seven other children from their care. Christopher had also been involved in two prior neglect proceedings. The parents exhibited severe deficiencies in parenting skills, an inability to address Christopher's emotional disturbances, and a history of rejecting assistance. After voluntarily placing Christopher with the petitioner, who became his psychological parent, they abruptly cut off contact. The Family Court found extraordinary circumstances, justified judicial intervention, and granted custody to the petitioner, a decision which the appellate court subsequently affirmed.

Custody DisputeParental UnfitnessChild NeglectExtraordinary CircumstancesFamily Court Act Article 6Child Protective ServicesAppealParental RightsPsychological ParentEmotional Disturbance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Surgicare Surgical v. National Interstate Insurance

This case addresses whether an insurer complies with New York's 11 NYCRR 68.6 regulation by reimbursing for out-of-state medical services according to the host state's (New Jersey's) no-fault fee schedule. Plaintiff Surgicare Surgical, assignee of an injured party, sought full payment for surgery performed in New Jersey, but defendant National Interstate Insurance Company paid a reduced amount based on New Jersey's fee schedule. The court affirmed the defendant's method, ruling that when medical services are rendered in another jurisdiction with its own fee schedule, the 'permissible' charge under that schedule constitutes the 'prevailing fee' under New York's regulation. The decision emphasized alignment with legislative intent to contain no-fault insurance costs and reduce judicial burden, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint and denying its cross-motion.

No-Fault BenefitsInsurance LawFee Schedule DisputeOut-of-State Medical ServicesNew York RegulationsNew Jersey Fee ScheduleStatutory InterpretationAutomobile AccidentReimbursement DisputeSummary Judgment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc., Interboro Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Media Masters Distributors, and REZ Associates sued multiple defendants including The New York Post Co., Inc., Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., El Diario Associates, Pelham News Co., Inc., American Periodical Distributors, Inc., Vincent Orlando, The Newspaper and Mail Deliverer’s Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), and Douglas La Chance. The action alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, the New York State Donnelly Act, and state common laws, stemming from the termination of plaintiffs as newspaper distributors. The plaintiffs claim a conspiracy between Orlando (owner of Pelham and American) and La Chance (former NMDU president) to use La Chance's union influence to transfer distribution routes to Orlando's companies. Two related criminal indictments are pending: People v. La Chance and People v. NMDU. The court considered defendants' motion to stay civil discovery pending the resolution of these criminal matters. The court granted a complete stay of discovery for all defendants until the criminal proceedings against La Chance and Orlando are resolved, citing the protection of Fifth Amendment rights and the promotion of judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery.

AntitrustRICORacketeeringConspiracyCivil DiscoveryCriminal ProceedingsStay of ProceedingsFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationLabor Union
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1998

Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp.

Reding Nieves, an employee of United Fire Protection, was injured while installing fire sprinklers at a New York Hall of Science site, which was subcontracted by Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp. He allegedly tripped over a concealed drop light after stepping off an eight-foot ladder, sustaining an ankle injury. Nieves sued Five Boro under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Five Boro filed a third-party action against United, with the motion court initially granting Nieves summary judgment. However, the appellate court modified this order, denying summary judgment for all parties due to unresolved questions of fact surrounding the accident's cause, including conflicting testimonies. Consequently, the case requires a trial to determine liability and facts, as neither side was entitled to summary judgment.

Elevation-related riskTripping hazardSummary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Construction site accidentLadder fallContributory negligenceQuestions of factAppellate DivisionSubcontractor liability
References
11
Case No. ADJ10265190
Regular
Jun 12, 2017

HANAN MEGALLA vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

This case involves a worker who sustained severe injuries from gunshot wounds and sought additional physical therapy. The defendant employer argued that the request was untimely and beyond the post-surgical treatment period, and that the applicant failed to establish medical necessity. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the employer failed to timely and effectively serve the Utilization Review denial. The Board found the additional physical therapy was reasonable and necessary, and that the request fell within the permissible 24-visit limitation after the post-surgical period concluded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewService of DeterminationReconsiderationMedical TreatmentFindings and AwardWCJApplicantDefendantSan Bernardino County
References
3
Case No. No. 47
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2023

The People v. Superintendent, Woodbourne Correctional Facility

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the Sexual Assault Reform Act's (SARA) school grounds condition, codified in Executive Law § 259-c (14), violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution when applied to offenders whose crimes predated the 2005 SARA amendments. Petitioner Danny Rivera, convicted in 1986 and later designated a level three sexually violent offender, faced prolonged incarceration due to his inability to find SARA-compliant housing. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that Rivera failed to demonstrate, by the clearest proof, that the SARA condition's effects are so punitive as to negate its civil intent, thereby not violating the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Ex Post Facto ClauseSexual Assault Reform Act (SARA)Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA)Residency RestrictionParole ConditionsIncarcerationRetroactive ApplicationConstitutional LawPunishmentCivil Remedy
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Post

The case involves defendants Constance G. Post and Wayne Charles, convicted of mail fraud, honest services fraud, and conspiracy, who challenged their convictions post-trial following the Supreme Court's Skilling decision. Post, a Mount Vernon city official, engaged in undisclosed self-dealing to benefit Charles through various schemes involving city contracts and HUD funds. The court found that erroneous jury instructions on honest services fraud, which did not limit it to bribes or kickbacks, constituted a Skilling error. Given the intertwined presentation of valid pecuniary fraud and invalid honest services fraud theories, the court could not guarantee the jury's verdict was solely based on a permissible theory. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the mail fraud and conspiracy counts is granted, while Charles's false statements conviction remains due to a lack of prejudicial spillover.

Mail fraudHonest services fraudConspiracyPublic corruptionUndisclosed self-dealingSkilling v. United StatesJury instructionsHarmless error reviewFederal criminal lawPost-conviction motion
References
59
Case No. ADJ6622799
Regular
Oct 18, 2013

TERRY A. WIRTH vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the denial of a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendant, the State of California Highway Patrol. The applicant, Terry A. Wirth, suffered a continuous trauma injury (prostate cancer) leading to urinary and erectile dysfunction. The Appeals Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, finding that the date of injury was in 2008, determining the applicable permanent disability compensation rate based on that date. The Board also found ample evidence supporting the agreed medical examiner's impairment ratings for the applicant's post-surgical conditions, dismissing the defendant's objections.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardState of California Highway PatrolState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent disability compensation rateLabor Code section 5412Urinary incontinenceErectile dysfunctionCommon postprostatectomy symptomsWhole person impairment ratings
References
3
Case No. ADJ6853853
Regular
Oct 05, 2012

KYB FUGFUGOSH vs. SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a finding that San Quentin State Prison committed serious and willful misconduct. The applicant, an inmate kitchen worker, sustained a right shoulder injury on June 18, 2008, after being ordered to work despite presenting medical documentation of his injury and post-surgical condition. The Board upheld the Administrative Law Judge's finding that prison officials' failure to acknowledge and act on the applicant's medical limitations constituted a reckless disregard for his safety, proximately causing his injury. The employer's arguments regarding perjured testimony and newly discovered evidence were rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Quentin State PrisonState Compensation Insurance Fundserious and willful misconductadmitted injurykitchen workerarthroscopic acromioplastyrotator cuff tearsfailure to reportinmate request for interview
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 3,659 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