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

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. 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
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2010

Commissioner of Social Services v. Dimarcus C.

The Family Court in New York County denied the appellant's motion for genetic testing and affirmed an order of filiation declaring the appellant to be the father of the subject child. The court found it was in the child's best interest to estop the respondent from denying paternity, as the respondent had consistently presented himself as the father to family, friends, and the child, providing support and care. Additionally, the 12-year-old child believed the respondent was his father. The court was not required to identify the biological father, having already dismissed a petition against another individual who was excluded by DNA testing, and a father-son relationship existed between the child and the respondent.

Paternity DisputeFiliation OrderEquitable EstoppelChild WelfareParental RightsGenetic Testing DenialAppellate ReviewFamily Court DecisionBest Interest of ChildImplied Paternity
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2006

Perez v. Munoz

The father appealed a Family Court order from Kings County, dated August 21, 2006, which denied his petition to modify a prior visitation order and for paternity testing. Specifically, he sought to have a social worker transport his children to his place of incarceration for visitation. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, stating that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel relief against an un-summoned social worker or agency. Additionally, the denial of paternity testing was upheld, as the proper procedure for challenging or establishing paternity, without a support order being sought, is through a separate Family Court Act article 5 proceeding.

CustodyVisitationPaternity TestingIncarcerationFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewJurisdictionFamily LawParental RightsJudicial Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valley Psychological, P.C. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

Plaintiff, Valley Psychological, P.C., provided psychological services to a woman involved in a motor vehicle accident, with claims assigned to plaintiff and covered by defendant, Liberty Mutual Insurance. Defendant denied these claims more than 30 days after receipt, leading plaintiff to file a commercial claim. Defendant asserted a provider fraud defense, alleging improper supervision by plaintiff's principal psychologist. Both City Court and County Court dismissed the claim based on the fraud defense, ruling that the untimely denial did not preclude this defense. However, this Court reversed, holding that defendant's untimely denial did preclude the fraud defense, as it pertained to excessive treatment rather than a strict lack of coverage. The matter was remitted to the City Court of the City of Albany to determine the judgment amount in plaintiff's favor.

no-fault insuranceuntimely denialfraud defensemedical services providerpreclusion doctrinelack of coverageexcessive treatmentworkers' compensation schedulescommercial claimappellate review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holtz v. E & E Drilling & Testing Co.

The Supreme Court erred in denying defendant E & E Drilling and Testing Company, Inc. (EEDT) permission to serve an amended answer. The proposed amendment sought to allege that workers' compensation benefits constitute the plaintiff's sole remedy. The appellate court ruled that leave to amend should be freely granted, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any prejudice. Furthermore, the court identified a factual dispute regarding the decedent's employment status at the time of the accident, which means the defendant's defense cannot be deemed meritless as a matter of law. Consequently, the original order was unanimously reversed, and the defendant's motion to serve an amended answer was granted.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAmended PleadingsAffirmative DefensesEmployment StatusSole Remedy DoctrineAppellate ReviewProcedural ErrorLeave to AmendMaterial Issue of FactDenial of Motion
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rivera v. North Central Bronx Hospital

The employer appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, arguing that the Board incorrectly interpreted Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-a (7) by mandating reimbursement to the claimant’s doctor for an EMG test. The employer contended that since the claimant failed to use a specified provider as per statutory notice, it should not be obligated to pay. However, the court found no statutory or historical support for nonpayment as a remedy, noting that the law aims to provide swift benefits to injured employees and prevent providers from collecting directly from workers. The court emphasized that allowing the employer to avoid payment would harm medical providers and deter their participation in the workers’ compensation system. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board’s decision, requiring the employer to pay its in-network rate to the claimant's doctor.

Workers' Compensation LawEMG test reimbursementEmployer appealStatutory interpretationMedical provider paymentClaimant medical expensesSelf-insured employersDiagnostic testsLegislative intentBoard decision affirmed
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 807 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