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

Capozzi v. Whitman

This case involves an Article 78 application for a writ of prohibition against a Justice of the Municipal Court. The petitioner, acting as a landlord, sought to prevent the Municipal Court from vacating a final order and warrant of eviction previously issued in a summary proceeding. The tenant had moved to set aside the final order, citing fraud or mistake. The court ruled that it possesses inherent power to vacate its own judgments or final orders in the interest of justice. Furthermore, the petitioner was found to have an adequate remedy through appeal. Consequently, the cross-motion was granted, and the proceeding for a writ of prohibition was dismissed.

Article 78Writ of ProhibitionSummary ProceedingVacating Final OrderInherent Court PowerAppellate RemedyLandlord-Tenant DisputeFraudNewly Discovered EvidenceMunicipal Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1999

Atkinson v. City of New York

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by a petitioner against the City of New York. The petitioner sought to prevent the City from imposing a Workers’ Compensation lien on an award received through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the petition and prohibited the lien. On appeal, the decision was affirmed, with the court reiterating that Workers’ Compensation liens are applicable only against recoveries from third-party tortfeasors responsible for injuries, as per Matter of Shutter v Philips Display Components Co. The court determined that the vaccine injury award did not constitute such a recovery, thus precluding the lien. The case Matter of Ryan v General Elec. Co. was distinguished as involving an award against a tortfeasor under the Military Claims Act.

Workers' Compensation LienNational Vaccine Injury Compensation ProgramCPLR Article 78Third-Party TortfeasorAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationLien ProhibitionVaccine Injury AwardMilitary Claims ActNew York Appellate Courts
References
2
Case No. WR-80,923-02
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2015

Harris, Roderick

Roderick Harris, a death row inmate, sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the disclosure of his trial files, which were ordered by the trial court in response to his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The State of Texas filed a response, arguing that Harris's claims waived attorney-client and work-product privileges, thereby justifying the disclosure order. The State contended that the trial court possessed the discretion under Article 11.071 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to compel discovery of relevant files. It requested the Court of Criminal Appeals deny Harris's motion, emphasizing that the scope of waiver for privileged information is determined by the trial court based on relevancy to the ineffective assistance claims. The case highlights a dispute over the balance between a defendant's privilege and the state's need for evidence in habeas corpus proceedings.

Capital MurderWrit of ProhibitionHabeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork-Product PrivilegeDiscovery OrderTrial FilesRestraintsExtraneous Offense Evidence
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Human Resources Administration v. Carey

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 petition in the nature of a writ of prohibition. The petitioner, the City Human Resources Administration (HRA), sought to vacate a Supreme Court order regarding defendant Delgado, who was charged with arson. Delgado was found by two psychiatrists to be an incapacitated person unable to stand trial due to a severe hearing defect. The lower court, misinterpreting CPL article 730, ruled that Delgado's physical incapacity did not fall under the statute and ordered his placement with HRA and the Department of Social Services. The appellate court granted the writ of prohibition, vacating the lower court's order for exceeding its jurisdiction. The court declared Delgado incompetent to stand trial *nunc pro tunc* and committed him to the custody of the New York State Commissioner of Mental Health, clarifying that CPL 730.10 broadly applies to any mental defect causing incapacity, regardless of its source. The decision emphasized that the statute does not distinguish between different sources of disability once a finding of incapacity is made.

Incompetency to Stand TrialWrit of ProhibitionMental IncapacityCriminal Procedure LawJurisdiction DisputeArson Third DegreeDue ProcessCommitment OrderAppellate ReviewPhysical Impairment
References
1
Case No. WR-62,099-03
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2015

Pruett, Robert Lynn

Robert Lynn Pruett, convicted of capital murder in 2002 for the killing of correctional officer Daniel Nagle, seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent his execution scheduled for April 28, 2015. Pruett maintains his innocence, arguing that his conviction relied on unreliable informant testimony and lacked physical evidence. He pursued post-conviction DNA testing of a disciplinary report found near Nagle's body, but the evidence had degraded due to improper storage in plastic bags, violating state preservation guidelines. Pruett argues that the State's failure to properly preserve this potentially exculpatory evidence violates his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He contends that his inability to prove his innocence, stemming from the State's negligence, makes his execution unconstitutional.

Death PenaltyDNA TestingEvidence PreservationWrit of ProhibitionDue ProcessCruel and Unusual PunishmentCapital MurderExculpatory EvidenceForensic ScienceTexas Criminal Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cortland Glass Co. v. Angello

The petitioner sought to prohibit the Commissioner of Labor from allowing Iron Workers Local Union 417 to intervene in an administrative hearing. This hearing was initiated by the Department of Labor to investigate allegations that the petitioner failed to pay prevailing wages on public work projects, specifically by paying glaziers' rates instead of ironworkers' rates for preglazed window installation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's CPLR article 78 proceeding, affirming the Commissioner's authority to permit permissive intervention in adjudicatory proceedings. On appeal, the court rejected the union's argument that the appeal was not ripe for review and ultimately affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment. The decision clarified that administrative intervention rules are broader than judicial standing requirements and found no clear legal bar violated by the Hearing Officer's grant of intervention.

Administrative LawInterventionProhibition (Writ)CPLR Article 78Labor LawPrevailing WagePublic Work ProjectsAgency DiscretionRipeness DoctrineStanding to Sue
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. New York City Transit Authority

Petitioners, Local 106 Transport Workers Union and Richard LaManna, initiated a proceeding to prevent the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) from mandating track safety training for property protection supervisors. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petition, citing the petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies and asserted Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) jurisdiction over improper labor practice claims. The appellate court reversed this judgment, ruling that the existing collective bargaining agreement was solely between the Union and the nonparty Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA), not the NYCTA, making its grievance procedures inapplicable to the NYCTA. Furthermore, the court found that PERB lacked jurisdiction because the NYCTA was not the employer of the supervisors. Consequently, the petition was granted, prohibiting the NYCTA from enforcing mandatory track safety training.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesPublic Employment Relations BoardProhibition ProceedingTrack Safety TrainingProperty Protection SupervisorsManhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating AuthorityNew York City Transit AuthorityExhaustion Doctrine
References
4
Case No. ADJ2001631 (LAO 0876091)
Regular
Oct 01, 2010

SALVADOR AGUAYO, JR. vs. AMERICAN GOLF CORPORATION, ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address an attorney's fee award of $4,500.00. This fee was awarded for services related to alleged prohibited ex parte communications with Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs), as per Labor Code section 4062.3. The Board rescinded the award, finding no explicit determination of prohibited communication occurred as the prior WCJ's orders were voided. The matter was returned to the trial level to first determine if prohibited ex parte communication occurred, and if so, to award fees based on incurred costs and attorney fees for related discovery.

Salvador Aguayo Jr.American Golf CorporationArch Insurance CompanyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardreconsiderationFindings and Awardattorney's feeprohibited communicationsQualified Medical EvaluatorsQME
References
1
Case No. W2005-00794-SC-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2006

Donna J. Overman v. Altama Delta Corporation - Dissenting

Chief Justice Barker dissents from the majority's ruling, arguing that they misinterpret and misapply Tennessee's workers' compensation statutes concerning settlement agreements. He contends that a court-approved settlement, even if it includes a waiver of reconsideration rights, does not constitute a prohibited "contract or other device" under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-114(a). Furthermore, he highlights that recent statutory amendments prohibiting such waivers explicitly apply only to injuries occurring on or after July 1, 2004, implying their permissibility for earlier injuries. Barker asserts that the legislature's qualified prohibition for future injuries indicates their acceptance of prior judicial constructions that upheld such waivers for injuries occurring before the specified date, including Ms. Overman's 2002 injury.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementsWaiver of RightsStatutory InterpretationDissenting OpinionInterlocutory AppealTennessee LawLegislative IntentJudicial ConstructionReconsideration Rights
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Butler v. State

Judge Miller's concurring opinion addresses the statutory interpretation of juror excuses in Texas, specifically concerning economic reasons. The opinion highlights a conflict between Section 62.110 of the Texas Government Code, which generally prohibits economic excuses without party approval, and Article 35.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which lacks such a prohibition for criminal trials. Judge Miller argues that Article 35.03, as the more particularized code, should govern criminal proceedings regarding jury selection and excuses, emphasizing that the legislature's intent was not to extend the economic excuse prohibition to criminal trials. The opinion critiques prior caselaw that applied Section 62.110 in criminal settings, asserting that Article 35.03 alone controls the issue at bar.

Judicial ExcuseJuror SelectionEconomic ReasonsTexas Government CodeCode of Criminal ProcedureStatutory InterpretationConflict of LawsLegislative IntentCriminal TrialsJury Duty
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 671 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