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

Main Evaluations, Inc. v. State

The claimant, Main Medical Evaluations, entered into contracts with the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) to perform consultative medical evaluations. OTDA terminated these contracts, alleging the claimant failed to disclose professional disciplinary proceedings against its chief medical officer, Arvinder Sachdev, and submitted false information during the bidding process. Following the dismissal of its claim in the Court of Claims, the claimant appealed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that OTDA had legitimate grounds for termination due to the claimant's misrepresentations and failure to report substantial contract-related issues concerning Sachdev's integral role. Additionally, the court rejected the claimant's equal protection argument, finding no evidence of selective enforcement based on impermissible considerations.

Contract TerminationProfessional MisconductFalse RepresentationEqual ProtectionGovernment ContractsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractMedical LicensingAdministrative ProceedingsDue Diligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clear Water Psychological Services PC v. American Transit Insurance Co.

Plaintiff Clear Water Psychological Services PC sought no-fault benefits from defendant American Transit Insurance Company. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved for a 90-day stay, arguing that the assignor, Oshane Crooks, was acting as an employee at the time of the November 10, 2014 automobile accident, falling under Workers’ Compensation Board jurisdiction. A key issue was the admissibility of an uncertified police accident report (MV-104AN) which suggested the assignor was driving a taxi. The court ruled the uncertified report inadmissible under CPLR 4518 (c) for authentication reasons, despite the officer's personal observations. However, acknowledging the unresolved factual question of the assignor’s employment status and the Workers’ Compensation Board's primary jurisdiction, the court granted the defendant’s motion, staying the action for 90 days for a Workers’ Compensation Law applicability determination.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentStay of actionWorkers' CompensationPolice accident reportAdmissibility of evidenceCPLR 4518Vehicle and Traffic LawPrimary jurisdictionEmployment status
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

55th Management Corp. v. Goldman

This case addresses whether an out-of-court statement made to a court evaluator in an Article 81 guardianship proceeding is protected by absolute privilege, thereby defeating a defamation claim. The defendant, a tenant, made allegedly defamatory remarks about a landlord to a court evaluator during the evaluator's investigation for a guardianship proceeding. The court considered if the remarks were pertinent, if a statement to a court evaluator is considered part of a judicial proceeding, and if the speaker had standing. The court found the remarks pertinent, extended the absolute privilege to statements made to court evaluators given their role as court agents, and affirmed the defendant's standing as a potential witness. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was granted.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsCourt EvaluatorGuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Tenant-Landlord DisputeMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Scope of Privilege
References
44
Case No. 2015-455 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

This case involves Metro Psychological Services, P.C., as an assignee, seeking first-party no-fault benefits from Travelers Property & Casualty Insurance Company. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the assignor's injuries occurred during employment, which would make workers' compensation benefits applicable. The Civil Court denied the defendant's motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Term reversed this order, concluding there was an unresolved issue as to whether the plaintiff's assignor was acting in the course of employment at the time of the accident. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Civil Court to be held in abeyance, pending a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding the parties' rights under the Workers' Compensation Law, underscoring the Board's primary jurisdiction in such matters.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAbeyanceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeMedical ProviderAssigneeCourse of Employment
References
9
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04626 [197 AD3d 518]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2021

D. S. v. Positive Behavior Support Consulting & Psychological Resources, P.C.

This case involves an appeal by the Port Jefferson School District from an order denying its motion to dismiss a personal injury complaint. The infant plaintiff, a special education student, was allegedly injured by a therapist, Vito Silecchia, during a behavioral therapy session. The plaintiffs sued the School District, among others, alleging Silecchia was an employee or agent. The District contended Silecchia was an independent contractor retained through Positive Behavior Support Consulting and Psychological Resources, P.C. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the dismissal motion, stating that the complaint adequately stated a cause of action and that documentary evidence did not conclusively establish an independent contractor relationship, given provisions in the agreement suggesting the District maintained some control over the services.

Personal InjuryRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewVicarious LiabilitySchool District LiabilitySpecial EducationTherapist NegligenceCPLR 3211 (a) (1)
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sasser v. Kelley

Petitioner Andrew Sasser, convicted of capital murder, sought federal habeas corpus relief due to ineffective assistance of counsel during his sentencing phase. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case, requiring a determination of whether Sasser was ineligible for the death penalty due to intellectual disability (an Atkins claim) and consideration of four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. This Court focused on three ineffective assistance claims: failure to prepare for the sentencing phase, failure to obtain a timely psychological evaluation, and failure to meaningfully consult with a mental health professional. The Court found that trial counsel's failure to conduct a thorough investigation, timely obtain a psychological evaluation, and meaningfully consult with a qualified mental health professional constituted ineffective assistance. Consequently, postconviction counsel's failure to raise these claims was also deemed ineffective, excusing procedural default. The petition for habeas corpus relief was granted.

Ineffective assistance of counselHabeas corpusDeath penaltyIntellectual disabilityProcedural defaultAtkins claimSentencing phaseMitigation evidencePsychological evaluationMental health expert
References
26
Case No. ADJ10800397
Regular
May 20, 2019

MARILYN RAMIREZ GALVEZ vs. NIAGARA BOTTLING LLC, SAFETY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.

The applicant sought a QME panel in psychology for a claimed psychiatric injury after orthopedic and internal medicine evaluations. The WCJ denied the request, finding no substantial medical evidence for a psychological QME. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and found good cause for a psychological QME panel. This decision allows the applicant to pursue necessary medical-legal discovery regarding her disputed psychological injury claim.

Petition for RemovalFindings and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelpsychologypsychiatric injurydiscoveryinternal medicineorthopedic QMEhypertension
References
1
Case No. ADJ2167155 (VNO 0443514)
Regular
Oct 17, 2013

Thomas David Williams vs. MAKENZIE ELECTRICAL INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board remanded the case for further development of the record concerning the applicant's claimed injury to psyche/PTSD. The prior findings were not based on substantial evidence due to an inadequate medical history and stale opinions from the evaluating physician, Dr. Glaser. The Board ordered a new evaluation by an Agreed Medical Evaluator or a regular physician to address the complex psychological issues, including PTSD, substance abuse, and potential organic brain injury. After this evaluation, the matter will return to the judge for a new decision incorporating all relevant findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPsyche/PTSDSubstantial EvidenceAgreed Medical EvaluatorLabor Code section 5701Findings and AwardWCJPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
0
Case No. ADJ8822755
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

LAURA TARAZON vs. VOLT INFORMATION SCIENCES, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE

This case involves a dispute over a lien claim by Psychological Assessment Services (PAS) for evaluations and reporting related to applicant Laura Tarazon's psyche injury claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the finding that Dr. Phillips, an MPN physician, is entitled to payment for treatment. However, the WCAB amended the order to defer the issue of PAS's lien, returning it to the trial level for further proceedings. This is because the WCJ's basis for disallowing the lien, that the services were a medical-legal evaluation, was not properly raised at trial and a PTP can be compensated for such evaluations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationAmended Findings and OrderMedical Provider NetworkMPNPrimary Treating PhysicianNon-MPN PrimaryLien ClaimantMedical-Legal EvaluationLabor Code
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paul C. v. Tracy C.

This case concerns an appeal by a father against a Family Court order granting custody of his two children to the mother. The father contended that the court erred by not ordering psychological or social evaluations, that the Law Guardian provided inadequate representation by not requesting such evaluations or calling witnesses, and that the custody decision for the mother was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, finding that the decision regarding evaluations was within the court's discretion, the Law Guardian actively represented the children's best interests, and the Family Court's custody determination was supported by the evidence and accorded great weight.

Child CustodyParental RightsVisitation RightsPsychological EvaluationLaw Guardian RepresentationBest Interests of the ChildAppellate ReviewFamily Court DiscretionCustody DisputeEvidence Weight
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 2,165 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