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. 2019 NY Slip Op 02568
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2019

Peterson v. Estate of John Rozansky

Elaine M. Peterson and David Peterson (later his estate) sued the Estate of John Rozansky for personal injuries after David Peterson was struck by Rozansky's vehicle. Rozansky had previously declined deposition citing dementia and subsequently died from Alzheimer's. Plaintiffs sought Rozansky's medical records, but the Supreme Court granted a protective order and denied plaintiffs' motion to strike the defendant's answer, a decision upheld upon reargument. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed, ruling that plaintiffs failed to show Rozansky's condition was 'in controversy' for CPLR 3121 (a) purposes, and neither Rozansky nor his estate waived physician-patient privilege. A dissenting opinion argued that Rozansky's refusal to be deposed due to dementia did place his condition in controversy, warranting medical record disclosure.

Personal InjuryMedical Records DiscoveryPhysician-Patient PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeProtective OrderDiscovery SanctionsStriking AnswerDementiaAlzheimer's DiseaseAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. LAO 733786
Regular
Jul 25, 2007

David Coe vs. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DIVING INSTRUCTORS, MISSION INSURANCE COMPANY, CIGA

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the trial judge's decision that barred the applicant's claim due to the statute of limitations. The Board found that the applicant's severe head injury and resulting dementia raised serious questions about his competency to file a timely claim. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine if the statute of limitations should be tolled due to the applicant's mental incapacity.

Statute of LimitationsIncompetencyGuardian Ad LitemTollingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMission InsuranceCIGAScuba Diving InstructorCatastrophic InjuryHypoxic Encephalopathy
References
1
Case No. ADJ302560 (LAO 0733786)
Regular
Aug 11, 2009

DAVID COE vs. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DIVING INSTRUCTORS, MISSION INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant, injured in 1984, filed a workers' compensation claim in 1996, outside the typical statute of limitations. The Administrative Law Judge found the claim barred due to the applicant's failure to prove incompetence during the intervening period. The Appeals Board, while granting reconsideration to address a separate fee issue, affirmed the statute of limitations bar, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant was legally incompetent to file his claim between 1984 and 1996. The Board concluded that the medical expert, while diagnosing dementia, could not definitively state the applicant was incompetent for the entire relevant period, thus applicant failed to meet his burden of proof.

Statute of LimitationsIncompetencyTollingDementiaExecutive FunctioningAgreed Medical EvaluatorEquitable EstoppelLabor Code Section 5710Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ
References
4
Case No. ADJ1885105
Regular
Dec 16, 2010

SCOTT SIMONS vs. SUPERHEAT SERVICES, INC., SPECIALTY RISK PLEASANTON

The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration regarding penalties and attorney fees, finding no evidence of unreasonable delay by the defendant. The Board granted the defendant's petition in part, reversing the order for a medical-legal examination by Dr. Sadoff for left knee surgery due to an underdeveloped record. However, the Board affirmed the WCJ's award of significant medical treatments, including home care, a motorized wheelchair, and neurological treatment for dementia, finding the treating physician's opinions more persuasive than utilization review denials. Finally, the Board clarified that transportation expenses are only for medical and medical-legal appointments, not legal ones.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardFurther Medical TreatmentDr. DeSallesDr. SadoffHome CareMotorized WheelchairTilt-Table TestENG Study
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Washington v. New York City Department of Buildings

The case involves an appeal concerning a claimant's right knee injury, initially sustained in a 1999 fall while working for the New York City Department of Buildings. After an initial workers' compensation claim, the claimant filed a second claim in 2001 for a pseudo-meniscal cyst in the same knee. While a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge deemed it a new injury, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the cyst causally related to the 1999 incident. This court affirmed the Board's amended decision, relying on an impartial orthopedic surgeon's testimony that the cyst developed from either synovial fluid leakage post-1999 surgeries or a degenerating meniscus tear, not a secondary injury.

Knee injuryWorkers' CompensationCausationMedical evidenceSynovial cystMeniscus tearBoard decisionAppealOrthopedic surgeonPrior injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2002

Sepulveda v. Aviles

Plaintiffs Elba and Victor Sepulveda, coexecutors of Agnes Seals' estate, sued David Aviles to set aside a 1994 property conveyance, alleging fraud and undue influence due to Seals' Alzheimer's dementia. The trial jury found Aviles not liable for fraud in the transfer but liable for other financial misconduct. On appeal, the court determined the jury's verdict was against the weight of evidence regarding Seals' diminished capacity and Aviles' exploitation, and that Aviles' testimony violating the Dead Man's Statute (CPLR 4519) was improperly admitted. The judgment was modified, vacating the verdict on the property transfer and remanding for a new trial, while affirming other monetary awards and directing the addition of prejudgment interest.

Undue InfluenceFraudAlzheimer's DementiaProperty ConveyanceDead Man's StatuteCPLR 4519Prejudgment InterestFiduciary RelationshipBurden of ProofMental Incapacity
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bugliari v. New York State Colleges

Claimant, a business law professor at Cornell University, developed multi-infarct dementia due to work-related stress in the mid-1980s. His employer provided accommodations like a student assistant, office couches, and an extended paid leave. After retiring, he filed a workers' compensation claim in January 1994, which the employer and carrier contested as time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the employer had made advance payments with knowledge of the work-related condition, thereby waiving the Statute of Limitations defense. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the employer's remuneration acknowledged the work-related nature of the claimant's condition.

Multi-infarct dementiaStress-induced psychiatric problemsWork-related illnessAdvance payments of compensationStatute of Limitations waiverWorkers' Compensation Board appealEmployer knowledgePaid leave benefitsJudicial reviewMedical condition
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Grace PP.

This case involves an appeal from a County Court order in Saratoga County. The order directed respondent, as attorney-in-fact for Grace PP. (an alleged incapacitated person, AIP), to pay counsel fees to the AIP's assigned counsel and to the petitioner's counsel. The petitioner, a licensed social worker, initiated a Mental Hygiene Law article 81 proceeding to appoint a guardian for Grace PP., who suffered from dementia and required nursing home placement. County Court appointed a temporary guardian and ordered the respondent to pay counsel fees. The respondent appealed, arguing the AIP was indigent due to Medicaid benefits. The appellate court found no error or abuse of discretion in the County Court's award of counsel fees and affirmed the order, noting the record lacked evidence of the AIP's indigence despite her Medicaid recipient status.

Counsel FeesIndigenceMedicaid BenefitsAttorney-in-factGuardian AppointmentIncapacitated PersonDementiaNursing Home PlacementAppellate ReviewSaratoga County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2001

In re Mary J.

Respondent, a 91-year-old widowed woman suffering from a fractured hip and extreme dementia, was admitted to a nursing home. A petitioner initiated a proceeding under Mental Hygiene Law article 81 to appoint a guardian for her personal needs and property management. The Supreme Court found the respondent incapacitated and appointed her children, Harold J. and Patricia N., as coguardians. The court also revoked a durable power of attorney and health care proxy previously executed by the respondent, citing her incapacity at the time of execution. Respondent and her daughter, Viola J., appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment, concluding that the petition was sufficient, the appointment of guardians was proper, and the revocation of the power of attorney and health care proxy was justified. The court emphasized the need to keep the respondent in the Albany area, where she had resided all her life.

GuardianshipIncapacitated PersonDementiaMental Hygiene LawDurable Power of AttorneyHealth Care ProxyAppellate ReviewFiduciary DutyPersonal NeedsProperty Management
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Beth Israel Medical Center

The guardian of Mrs. Farbstein, an incapacitated individual with degenerative dementia, sought a court order to compel the New York City Police Department to assist in transporting Mrs. Farbstein to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation against her will. This action was prompted by Mrs. Farbstein's agitated behavior, resistance to home care, and the guardian's inability to secure voluntary evaluation despite authority to consent to major medical treatment. The court examined the interplay between Mental Hygiene Law articles 81 and 9, specifically regarding a guardian's powers and involuntary admissions. It concluded that Article 81, focused on individual needs and least restrictive intervention, does not supersede the procedures for involuntary admission under Article 9. Consequently, the court denied the guardian's request, emphasizing the importance of upholding the incapacitated person's rights and adhering to the established legal framework for involuntary commitment.

GuardianshipMental Hygiene LawIncapacitated PersonsPsychiatric TreatmentInvoluntary HospitalizationPatient AutonomyCourt PowersMedical Decision-MakingPolice AssistanceArticle 81 Proceedings
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 13 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