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

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

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

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

Ornstein v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case addresses the viability of claims for emotional and psychological injury, specifically AIDS phobia and post-traumatic stress disorder, following an HIV exposure. The plaintiff, a nurse, was accidentally pricked by a contaminated needle and subsequently developed severe emotional distress. The Supreme Court had allowed her claims for post-traumatic stress disorder to extend beyond the established six-month limitation for AIDS phobia. However, this appellate court reversed that decision, ruling that all related emotional damages must adhere to the six-month period, based on the scientific consensus regarding the likelihood of HIV infection detection.

AIDS PhobiaHIV ExposureEmotional DistressPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressSix-Month Limitation RuleMedical ConsensusObjective StandardNeedle Stick InjuryWorkers' Compensation Psychiatrist
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2006

Sanchez v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate a settlement pertaining to an infant plaintiff's emotional injuries. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this denial. Plaintiffs, including the infant's guardian, claimed they only discovered the true extent of the infant's emotional injuries, including post-traumatic stress syndrome, in the summer of 2005 following an examination by a social worker. However, the court found that these psychological injuries were known from the case's inception in 2001 and were appropriately considered when the settlement was agreed upon in December 2004. Evidence, including a 2001 psychiatric evaluation, confirmed the infant's diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder prior to the settlement agreement.

Settlement DisputeInfant's RightsPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderVacating SettlementCompromise OrderPsychological HarmSearch Warrant ExecutionAppellate AffirmationParental GuardianJudicial Discretion
References
2
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rakowski v. New York State Department of Labor

Claimant (Rakowski) filed multiple workers' compensation claims over the years, alleging various injuries due to poor workplace air quality and formaldehyde exposure. Her initial 1990 claim for symptoms like dizziness and headaches was denied by the Workers' Compensation Board, a decision affirmed on appeal. Subsequent claims in 1998, alleging fibromyalgia and neurological damage, were also disallowed as duplicative. In 2004, she filed another application for lung nodules and post-traumatic stress. The Board again denied these claims, citing previous litigation, speculative connections due to elapsed time, and lack of evidence for a compensable accident. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion and supporting the Board's findings that the claims were fully litigated, duplicative, or speculative without new evidence.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewOccupational DiseaseFormaldehyde ExposureWorkplace EnvironmentPrior LitigationClaim DenialMedical CausationDuplicative ClaimsStatute of Limitations
References
4
Case No. ADJ14336798
Regular
Oct 20, 2025

NADESH MOFOR vs. CA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND MCO, STATE EMPLOYEES SACRAMENTO

Defendant sought reconsideration of a July 23, 2025 Finding of Fact and Award (F&A) concerning applicant Nadesh Mofor's permanent disability for headaches and a temporary total disability (TTD) overpayment credit. Defendant contended its due process rights were violated due to the F&A issuing before its post-trial brief was considered, that the medical evidence for headaches was insubstantial, and that it was entitled to TTD overpayment credit. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to correct the stipulated period of temporary disability from April 11, 2022, to June 2, 2022, and otherwise affirmed the F&A, concluding that the medical evidence for headaches was substantial and the denial of TTD overpayment credit was within the WCJ's discretion.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDNADESH MOFORCA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDADJUDICATION NUMBERSOPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONFINDING OF FACT AND AWARDPERMANENT DISABILITYAPPORTIONMENTTEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY OVERPAYMENT
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kotlyarsky v. New York Post

Plaintiffs Boris and Alla Kotlyarsky and Reliable Rehabilitation Center, Inc. sued defendants New York Post, NYP Holdings, Inc., Susan Edelman, and Devlin Barrett for libel. The action stemmed from a December 11, 2000 article in the New York Post that alleged Boris Kotlyarsky was under federal indictment and described Reliable Rehabilitation Center as a 'medical mill.' Plaintiffs claimed they were promised a retraction, which was later withdrawn, leading them to delay filing their lawsuit until August 12, 2002. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the one-year statute of limitations for libel had expired on December 12, 2001. Plaintiffs invoked equitable estoppel, equitable tolling, and promissory estoppel to argue the statute was tolled. The court found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate due diligence in pursuing the retraction and thus, the doctrines of estoppel or tolling were not applicable. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

defamationlibelstatute of limitationsequitable estoppelequitable tollingpromissory estoppelsummary judgmentdue diligenceretractionNew York Law
References
15
Case No. ADJ6875600
Regular
Aug 11, 2014

SHARON WALTER vs. INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL GROUP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the original award, returning the case for further proceedings. Applicant disputed findings regarding psychic injury, headaches, and permanent disability, arguing that post-injury employment should be considered and medical evidence of headaches was overlooked. The WCJ's report recommended granting the petition and further proceedings are now ordered.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and Orderindustrial injurytemporary disabilitypermanent disabilitypsycheheadachespost injury employmentLabor Code section 4658(d)(2)permanent total disability
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,007 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