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. ADJ7508584
Regular
Sep 30, 2014

CALVIN WRIGHT vs. HEALTH NET, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior order regarding temporary total disability (TTD) indemnity payments. The WCAB found the defendant's attorney's petition for reconsideration frivolous and filed in bad faith, noting the attorney attempted to disregard a prior stipulation on average weekly earnings and TTD rate. Consequently, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions of up to $2,500 against the attorney for bad faith actions, delay, and failure to comply with procedural rules. The WCAB will affirm the prior order directing the defendant to pay the TTD difference owed to the applicant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsAttorney FeesStipulationTemporary Total Disability (TTD) IndemnityAverage Weekly EarningsWCJBad FaithFrivolous
References
0
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03883 [218 AD3d 24]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2023

Matter of Ellenberg

Robert L. Ellenberg, an attorney, was charged with professional misconduct by the Attorney Grievance Committee, including improper notarization, unauthorized signing and submission of settlement documents, neglect, and failure to communicate with a client. The parties reached a joint agreement for a two-month suspension, which the Appellate Division, First Department, granted. The court considered Ellenberg's conditional admissions, prior admonition, and substantial experience as aggravating factors, balanced by mitigating factors such as cooperation, remorse, absence of selfish motive, and his long, generally unblemished career, concluding that a two-month suspension was appropriate for his two acts of deception.

Attorney Disciplinary ActionProfessional MisconductNotarization IrregularitiesUnauthorized Document SubmissionClient Communication FailureNeglect of Legal MatterForged SignaturesTwo-Month SuspensionAppellate Division DecisionMitigation Factors
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04223 [208 AD3d 77]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

Matter of Faillace

This case concerns reciprocal discipline against attorney Michael Faillace, who was admitted to practice law in the First Judicial Department in 1984. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department sought a two-year suspension for Faillace, based on discipline imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Faillace was charged with serious professional misconduct, including underpaying clients' monies in violation of court orders, making misrepresentations during an investigation, and refusing to honor clients' decisions to settle claims. These actions violated several Rules of Professional Conduct. Faillace admitted to all charges and consented to a two-year suspension, which was implemented by the Southern District Court in November 2021. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the Committee's motion, imposing a two-year reciprocal suspension effective August 1, 2022, emphasizing the significant weight given to sanctions imposed by the initial jurisdiction and the consistency with prior disciplinary actions for similar misconduct.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethics violationLawyer suspensionReciprocal disciplineClient funds misappropriationMisrepresentation to tribunalFailure to abide by client settlement decisionAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionSouthern District of New York
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03294 [184 AD3d 223]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2020

Matter of Mauser

Marc R. Mauser, an attorney, was publicly censured by the Appellate Division, First Department, for professional misconduct. The Attorney Grievance Committee initiated disciplinary action against him for neglecting a client's personal injury case, failing to communicate for approximately 18 months, and making misrepresentations to the client, mediator, and the Committee regarding the case status and reasons for delays. Mauser also failed to diligently finalize a settlement and disburse funds promptly. The parties reached a joint agreement for discipline by consent, stipulating to violations of several Rules of Professional Conduct, including neglect of a legal matter, failure to promptly comply with client requests for information, failure to act with reasonable diligence, inadequate supervision of staff, and engaging in dishonest conduct. Despite aggravating factors, mitigating factors such as no prior discipline and acceptance of responsibility led to the agreed-upon sanction of public censure, which the Court granted.

Attorney disciplineprofessional misconductneglect of dutyfailure to communicatemisrepresentationpublic censureRules of Professional Conductsettlement delayclient communicationsupervisory failures
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1978

SOCIALIST WKRS. PARTY v. Attorney General of US

This case involves an action by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) against various federal agencies and officials, primarily the Attorney General and the FBI, for alleged constitutional violations stemming from extensive FBI informant activities and disruption programs. The current opinion addresses the Attorney General's refusal to comply with a May 31, 1977, court order to produce 18 confidential FBI informant files to plaintiffs' counsel. The court rejected the Attorney General's arguments concerning informant confidentiality, appellate review, and alternative sanctions, emphasizing the files' indispensable nature for the litigation of plaintiffs' claims, which include demands for damages and injunctive relief. The court ruled that the Attorney General must comply with the production order by July 7, 1978, or face civil contempt, underscoring the judiciary's power to enforce orders even against high-ranking government officials.

Informant ConfidentialityDiscovery DisputeCivil ContemptGovernment MisconductFBI SurveillancePolitical OrganizationsFirst Amendment RightsConstitutional ViolationsAppellate ReviewAttorney General
References
35
Case No. ADJ5690219
Regular
Jul 31, 2015

TOM PALLADINO vs. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award and issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions on applicant's attorney. This action stems from alleged false, misleading, and unsubstantiated allegations made by the attorney in the applicant's Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration. The Board found no evidence to support the claims of intentional delay by the defendant and determined the attorney's statements to be without merit and potentially prejudicial. The attorney and his firm face a $750 sanction unless good cause is shown why it should not be imposed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardQualified Medical EvaluatorPermanent DisabilityApportionmentSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10561Attorney Misconduct
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. District Attorney's Office of New York

Thomas Jones, currently incarcerated, filed an Article 78 proceeding to vacate the denial of his FOIL request by the District Attorney’s Office of the County of New York (DANY). Jones sought a trial verdict sheet from his 2000 conviction for conspiracy and assault. DANY denied the request, stating Judiciary Law § 255, which Jones cited, applies only to court clerks, not district attorneys. The court affirmed DANY's denial, ruling that district attorneys are not clerks of the court, and also found Jones's claims to be time-barred under the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. The petition was consequently denied and dismissed with prejudice.

FOIL RequestVerdict SheetArticle 78 ProceedingStatute of LimitationsDistrict AttorneyCourt ClerkJudiciary LawPenal LawCriminal ConspiracyAssault
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

The Attorney-General of New York initiated an action against Consolidated Edison of New York (Con Ed) seeking civil damages and an injunction to enforce compliance with the Right to Know Law (Public Health Law art 48; Labor Law art 28). This law mandates employers to provide information and training to employees concerning toxic substances in the workplace. Con Ed moved to dismiss the action, presenting two main arguments: first, that the Attorney-General lacked authority to sue without a prior investigation and determination by the Department of Labor, and second, that primary jurisdiction over enforcement of the Right to Know Law rested with the Department of Labor and the Department of Health. The court denied Con Ed's motion on both counts, ruling that Labor Law § 882 (1) unambiguously grants the Attorney-General the authority to bring such actions without a prerequisite administrative investigation. Furthermore, the court found that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction did not apply, as the administrative agencies had not yet promulgated comprehensive regulations to enforce the law, leaving a regulatory void that the judiciary was empowered to address to protect employee rights.

Right to Know LawToxic SubstancesEmployee InformationWorkplace SafetyStatutory InterpretationPrimary JurisdictionAdministrative LawEnforcement AuthorityLabor LawPublic Health Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee Myles Associates Corp. v. Abrams

The petitioners, Lee Myles Associates Corporation and Charles George, filed a CPLR article 78 petition seeking to vacate a determination by the Attorney-General of the State of New York dated June 10, 1982. The Attorney-General had refused to register Lee Myles's franchise offering prospectus due to Charles George's prior felony conviction. Petitioners contended this rejection was arbitrary and violated their due process rights. The court found that the petitioners were denied procedural due process, specifically the opportunity for a full hearing, to confront witnesses, and to subpoena witnesses. Consequently, the court granted the petition to the extent of vacating the Attorney-General's determination and ordered a new de novo hearing on the franchise application, while denying the request for interim relief.

Procedural Due ProcessFranchise Sales ActGeneral Business LawFelony ConvictionAdministrative HearingArticle 78 PetitionDe Novo HearingFranchise RegistrationDue Process RightsProperty Rights
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 9,530 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