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
Aug 08, 1975

Flynn v. Mario & Di Bono Plastering Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on August 8, 1975, denying the third-party defendant’s motion for an order of preclusion or to compel plaintiffs and the third-party plaintiff to provide certain particulars. The underlying case involves a wrongful death claim by plaintiffs, whose testate iron worker allegedly died from lung cancer due to asbestos exposure at a construction site. The plaintiffs alleged negligence against the manufacturer and supplier of the asbestos product for failing to comply with statutes, rules, and regulations. The third-party plaintiff, in turn, charged the appellant (third-party defendant) with similar violations. The appellate court unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order, directing the plaintiffs-respondents and third-party plaintiff-respondent to furnish a further bill of particulars. The decision highlighted the requirement in tort actions to specifically identify any statutory violations asserted.

asbestos exposurewrongful deathlung cancerstatutory violationbill of particularsnegligencethird-party claimappellate reviewmotion to precludecause of action
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Porcelli v. PMA Associates

Claimant sought workers' compensation death benefits for her husband's death from respiratory failure, alleging it was an occupational disease from toxic chemical exposure during his 30+ years as a printer. A WCLJ initially awarded benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Board later precluded the claimant's medical expert's report and testimony due to untimely filing under 12 NYCRR 300.2 (d) (12). This preclusion led the Board to find no established causal relationship, closing the case without benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding adequate support for precluding the expert's evidence due to procedural non-compliance.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseDeath BenefitsMedical ExpertReport PreclusionTimely FilingProcedural RuleCausal RelationshipAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
6
Case No. 263 AD2d 686
Regular Panel Decision

Cicardi v. Cicardi

Petitioner Cicardi appealed two Family Court orders from Albany County, entered August 7, 1997, which dismissed his application for modification of a prior child support order and found him in arrears of approximately $19,600. The original 1994 order required petitioner to pay $150 per week. Cicardi sought to vacate arrearages and support obligations, claiming permanent disability due to a workers' compensation claim, but failed to provide competent medical evidence of a change in circumstances. The Family Court denied his requests for recusal of the judge and assignment of counsel, and precluded certain evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's orders, finding no error in the lower court's decisions regarding counsel, recusal, evidence preclusion, or the finding that Cicardi did not meet his burden of proving a substantial change in financial circumstances to warrant a downward modification, especially given his lack of effort to retrain.

Family LawChild SupportSupport ModificationArrearagesDisability ClaimChange in CircumstancesRecusal MotionAssignment of CounselPro Se LitigantEvidence Preclusion
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Tasker

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court of Broome County following a plea of guilty to sodomy in the first and second degrees. The appeal challenged the denial of a motion to suppress his confession and evidence, arguing an illegal arrest. Defendant also contested the determination of his competency to stand trial and the competency of the young victims to testify. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, finding that the defendant voluntarily accompanied the police, waived his constitutional rights, and consented to questioning. The court also found sufficient support for the lower court's determinations regarding the defendant's and victims' competencies.

sodomychild sexual abuseconfession suppressionillegal arrestcompetency to stand trialvictim competencyappellate reviewcriminal appealplea of guiltyBroome County
References
6
Case No. WCB G074 4160
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2013

Matter of Qualls v. Bronx District Attorney's Office

Claimant William Sanchez sustained a work-related injury to his left knee and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. After two surgeries, his treating physician determined he reached maximum medical improvement and released him to return to work with restrictions. Sanchez then obtained an order of preclusion due to the employer/carrier's failure to provide medical evidence. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this order and rescinded the preclusion order because the employer/carrier provided the required medical evidence before the preclusion order was issued. The employer/carrier appeals the finding that the claimant's period of temporary total disability extends beyond the date of maximum medical improvement.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsKnee InjuryMaximum Medical ImprovementPreclusion OrderAppellate DivisionMedical EvidenceTemporary Total DisabilityWork-Related InjurySedgwick CMS
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Mack

The defendant appealed the County Court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to felony murder and first-degree robbery. The initial appeal led to a remittal, vacating earlier competency findings and the denial of plea withdrawal due to a Sixth Amendment violation. Upon remittal, after further examination and an evidentiary hearing, the County Court again found the defendant competent at the time of his 2003 plea and denied his motion to withdraw it, as well as claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The current appellate court affirmed the County Court's decision, finding that the record supported the conclusion that the defendant was competent and his plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and that counsel provided meaningful representation.

Felony MurderRobbery First DegreeGuilty Plea WithdrawalCompetency to Stand TrialIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate ReviewSixth AmendmentMental Health EvaluationSchizo-affective DisorderPlea Colloquy
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Casas v. Consolidated Edison Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on October 3, 2011, which declared the defendant's answer stricken due to non-compliance with a conditional preclusion order from October 31, 2006, and limited the trial to the issue of damages. This order was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for not complying with discovery requests and did not present a meritorious defense, which was necessary to vacate the preclusion order. The court also clarified that a Workers' Compensation Board panel decision dated August 28, 2009, regarding the plaintiff's accident-related disability, does not have preclusive effect. Additionally, a prior decision and order of this Court, entered on April 9, 2013, was recalled and vacated.

Discovery SanctionsStriking AnswerConditional Preclusion OrderSelf-Executing OrderMeritorious DefenseReasonable ExcuseWorkers' Compensation BoardPreclusive EffectAppellate ReviewRecall and Vacate Order
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Olistin v. Wellington

Claimant, a driver for Winthrop Car Service, sought workers' compensation benefits after a 1995 automobile accident. Winthrop Car Service, the employer, failed to appear at multiple hearings, leading to a preclusion order against presenting witnesses. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied Winthrop's request to vacate the preclusion order and found an employer-employee relationship existed, awarding benefits to the claimant. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. On appeal, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying Winthrop's request to vacate the preclusion order, citing lack of explanation for their non-appearance. The court also affirmed the Board's finding of an employment relationship, noting Winthrop's control over the claimant's day-to-day work activities.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorAutomobile AccidentPreclusion OrderAdjournmentExcusable NeglectAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceControl Test
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Weech

The case involves an appeal from a defendant's murder conviction where the case was remitted to Trial Term to reconstruct the defendant's competency to stand trial. Two psychiatrists, Dr. Wellington Reynolds and Dr. Odysseus Adamides, assessed the defendant's competency based on various reports and observations. Dr. Reynolds had examined the defendant prior to trial. The defendant challenged Dr. Reynolds' credentials, asserting he was not a "qualified psychiatrist" under CPL 730.10(5)(a). The court previously remitted the case for a reconstruction proceeding. This current decision remits the matter once more for an adversary inquiry into the defendant's competency, clarifying that Dr. Reynolds' testimony, even if not from a "qualified psychiatrist," is admissible, and other professionals like the social worker, nurse, defense counsel, and Trial Judge could also testify.

Competency to Stand TrialReconstruction ProceedingPsychiatric EvaluationCriminal Procedure LawAdmissibility of Expert TestimonyAppellate ReviewDue ProcessMental Health ServicesDefendant's RightsMurder Second Degree
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. Zon

Thomas Lewis, convicted of second-degree robbery, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the state trial court's ad hoc competency procedure. The trial court heavily relied on a social worker's report, commissioned after the competency hearing, without affording Lewis an opportunity to contest it or cross-examine the social worker. This District Court found that this procedure violated Lewis's Due Process rights, as it constituted an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law requiring a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate incompetence. Given the impossibility of conducting a meaningful retrospective competency hearing due to the lapse of time and limitations of the original record, the court granted the habeas corpus petition. Lewis is to be discharged unless the State elects to retry him within 90 days.

habeas corpusdue processcompetency hearingpsychiatric examinationSixth AmendmentConfrontation Clausestate proceduresfederal lawcriminal prosecutionsecond-degree robbery
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 355 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