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. E1999-02206-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2001

State s. Anthony Lynn Wyrick

Anthony Lynn Wyrick was convicted of two counts of aggravated rape and sentenced to life without parole. He appealed on several grounds, including the trial court's exclusion of evidence of a prior false accusation of rape by the victim. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee reversed the judgments of conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. The court found that the trial court committed harmful error by not allowing the defendant to cross-examine the victim on the prior false accusation of rape, deeming it necessary for a fair determination of the case given the reliance on the victim's testimony.

Aggravated RapeCriminal AppealSufficiency of EvidenceIn-Court IdentificationPrior False AccusationImpeachmentCross-ExaminationDue ProcessConstitutional LawRecidivist Statute
References
109
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2001

State v. Wyrick

The defendant, Anthony Lynn Wyriek, was convicted of two counts of aggravated rape and sentenced to concurrent terms of life without parole as a repeat violent offender. He appealed, raising multiple issues including challenges to the sufficiency of the presentment and evidence, the admission of in-court identification, and the constitutionality of the repeat violent offender statute. Crucially, the defendant also argued that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of a prior false accusation of rape by the victim, which he contended was relevant to her credibility and motive to lie. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee determined that the trial court committed harmful error by not allowing the cross-examination of the victim on this prior false accusation, particularly given the victim's testimony was the primary evidence linking the defendant to the crime and other physical evidence was inconclusive. Consequently, the court reversed the judgments of conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.

Aggravated RapeSentencing EnhancementRepeat Violent Offender StatutePrior False AccusationVictim CredibilityCross-ExaminationConfrontation ClauseDue Process ViolationEvidentiary RulesRecidivism
References
112
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Koehler v. Sircovich

The case concerns an appeal arising from a slander lawsuit filed by Anna (defendant in error) against her employer, Mr. Koehler (plaintiff in error), in Houston, Texas. Anna, a confidential clerk for Koehler, was publicly accused by him of stealing $30 from the cash register in front of other employees and customers. She denied the accusation, offering to reconcile the register and be searched, but Koehler refused, fired her, and reiterated his accusation. Anna sought $10,000 in actual and $20,000 in exemplary damages, claiming the false accusation severely impacted her health and reputation, leaving her unable to work. Koehler contended his statements were privileged and made without malice, citing prior cash discrepancies and Anna's unexplained acquisitions of an automobile and property. The jury found Koehler liable, awarding Anna $10,000 in actual and $5,000 in exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Koehler's statements were not privileged due to lack of good faith and public utterance, and that there was ample evidence to support the jury's finding of malice and damages.

SlanderDefamationEmployee dischargeMalicePrivileged communicationActual damagesExemplary damagesCash register theft accusationEmployer liabilityJury verdict
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Meyerovich

The claimant, a maintenance technician, was discharged for misconduct after his manager observed him loafing on the job and he subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim for a back injury, which the employer alleged was false. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified the claimant from receiving benefits due to misconduct, a decision it adhered to upon reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence in the manager's testimony that she did not observe the claimant using a shovel during her observation, thus supporting the finding of a false workers' compensation claim and misconduct. The court also noted that conflicting testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve and that prior Workers' Compensation Board decisions were not final regarding the accidental injury issue, thus lacking collateral estoppel effect.

MisconductUnemployment Insurance BenefitsFalse Workers' Compensation ClaimSubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssueDischarge from EmploymentLoafingProbationAppeal Board DecisionAffirmation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. United Parcel Service

Plaintiff, a former United Parcel Service employee and union member, was discharged for alleged theft after being accused of stealing a package of watches. Although he was arrested, he was later acquitted of petit larceny. An arbitrator subsequently found his discharge was not for just cause and ordered his reinstatement with back pay and benefits. Following this, the plaintiff commenced an action against United Parcel Service for false imprisonment/unlawful arrest. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing preemption by the Labor Management Relations Act and the National Labor Relations Act, and sought to add affirmative defenses. Special Term denied summary judgment but granted leave to amend the answer. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding the tort claim was not preempted, but found that Special Term erred in refusing to dismiss the defendants' affirmative defenses regarding federal preemption and the exclusivity of Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

False ImprisonmentUnlawful ArrestLabor Management Relations Act PreemptionNational Labor Relations Act PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive Remedy ProvisionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTort Claim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2010

Claim of Poli v. Taconic Correctional Facility

The claimant, a correction officer, sought workers' compensation benefits after a 2007 work injury. The employer's carrier contested benefits, alleging the claimant made false statements about a prior 2006 back injury to his treating physician and an independent medical examiner, violating Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a. After a series of reviews, the Workers’ Compensation Board ultimately found a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a, rescinded prior awarded benefits, and imposed a permanent disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported the finding of false representation.

Workers' CompensationFraudFalse StatementMaterial FactWage Replacement BenefitsDisqualificationMedical HistoryPrior InjuryCredibilityAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dory v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

Claimant, receiving workers' compensation for a permanent partial disability from back injuries, was accused by the employer's carrier of violating Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. This accusation stemmed from an investigator observing claimant using a squat press machine, despite claimant's testimony in November 2006 denying such activity. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found that the employer and carrier failed to prove claimant knowingly made a false statement or misrepresentation of a material fact. The Board credited claimant's explanation that he did not understand "squat pressing" to include using the machine he utilized. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimant did not knowingly make a false statement.

Workers' CompensationFalse StatementMisrepresentationBenefits DisqualificationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewCredibilitySquat Press MachineBack InjuryEmployer's Carrier
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John A. v. Bridget M.

This case concerns a child custody dispute involving twin girls born in September 1999. The mother, residing in New York City, had custody until June 2004 when it was granted to the father, conditioned on his relocation. The Family Court found that the mother coached the children to make false accusations of sexual abuse against the father, a finding supported by the Law Guardian and neutral experts. Despite these findings, the appellate court reversed the Family Court's decision, concluding that it was in the best interests of the children to remain with their mother. The court reasoned that awarding custody to the father would mean the children would primarily be raised by their stepmother or paid caregivers due to the father's frequent business travel. The court also noted the mother's desistance from such misconduct since July 2003 and the potential involvement of another adult in planting the false accusations.

Child custodyParental alienationFalse accusationsSexual abuse allegationsBest interests of the childForensic evaluationJudicial discretionFamily lawAppellate reviewRelocation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnhart v. Coles

This case involves appeals concerning a child custody modification and a denied motion for renewal. The Family Court granted the petitioner's application to modify a prior custody order, transferring sole custody of their son, Joshua, from the respondent to the petitioner. The court found that the respondent engaged in deceit and fabrication to undermine the petitioner's relationship with the child, including falsely alleging abuse. Additionally, the respondent's history of alcohol abuse and the child's negative behavioral changes when contact with the petitioner was curtailed were cited as factors. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, emphasizing deference to its factual findings and credibility assessments, and upheld the denial of the respondent's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

custody disputevisitation rightsparental alienationchild's best interestcredibility assessmentalcohol abuseineffective assistance of counselFamily Court proceedingsappellate reviewcustody modification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Kover

Attorneys Burton Citak and Donald L. Citak appealed orders that imposed sanctions and denied legal fees related to an article 81 guardianship proceeding for Eva Dworecki, an alleged incapacitated person. The attorneys were sanctioned for frivolous conduct, including making misrepresentations and false statements in court filings and arguments, and accusing the court of misconduct, despite previously consenting to the guardianship. The appellate decision, in this concurring opinion by Tom, J.P., found ample support for the Supreme Court's finding that the attorneys' conduct warranted sanctions. The matter was remanded for further proceedings to determine the appropriate costs, reduce the award to judgment, and set reasonable legal fees for the Citak firm's representation of Dr. Dworecki prior to the frivolous filings.

SanctionsAttorneysGuardianshipArticle 81Frivolous ConductAppellate ReviewProfessional MisconductLegal FeesCostsCourt Orders
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 9,153 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