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
Apr 26, 2005

In re the Claim of Abramson

Claimant, an accountant placed by Staff Plus, Inc. at Goldman Sachs, was denied extended unemployment benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A). The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that Staff Plus was his base period employer, making him ineligible because Staff Plus was not a provider of services to an air carrier. An initial appeal led to remittal for further record development regarding the relationship between Staff Plus and the claimant. After re-evaluation, the Board reiterated its decision, finding a clear employment relationship between claimant and Staff Plus, which was supported by the evidence. The court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the denial of TEUC-A benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsTEUC-ATemporary Employment AgencyEmployment RelationshipBase Period EmployerDisplaced Airline-Related WorkersEligibility for BenefitsAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. American Re-Insurance Co.

The case revolves around a dispute between National Union Fire Insurance Company and American Re-Insurance Company regarding a pollution exclusion clause in a reinsurance policy. National Union sought reimbursement from American Re after settling claims where employees were exposed to metalworking fluids. American Re denied coverage, arguing its pollution exclusion applied. The court, applying Ohio law, found American Re's pollution exclusion ambiguous due to its broad language and its intended purpose of covering environmental contamination. Consequently, American Re's motion for summary judgment was denied, and National Union's motion to strike American Re's defense was granted, requiring American Re to "follow the fortunes" of National Union.

ReinsurancePollution Exclusion ClauseContract InterpretationFollow the Fortunes DoctrineSummary JudgmentInsurance CoverageAmbiguity in ContractsOhio State LawDiversity JurisdictionIndustrial Contamination
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2007

In re Kurt T.

Respondent, suffering from a stroke, had initially granted his cousin, the petitioner, a durable power of attorney and made her his sole beneficiary. After revoking these and appointing a neighbor, petitioner sought to appoint a guardian for respondent's person and property under Mental Hygiene Law article 81. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding insufficient evidence of incapacity, but ordered respondent to pay 80% of the combined legal and court evaluator fees. On cross-appeal, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the guardianship petition but modified the fee apportionment, ruling that the petitioner must pay her own legal fees due to evidence of avarice and improper actions, while upholding the respondent and petitioner sharing the court evaluator's and respondent's court-appointed counsel's fees.

GuardianshipIncapacityMental Hygiene LawPower of AttorneyHealth Care ProxyFiduciary DutyFee ApportionmentCross-AppealsAppellate ReviewFinancial Exploitation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Am

Following an initial guardianship proceeding where AM sought to be appointed guardian for AT, who was declared incapacitated, the court appointed TT as personal needs guardian and Frank G. D’Angelo, Jr. as property management guardian on April 2, 2007. AM subsequently filed a motion to reargue, seeking continued access to AT, permission to remain in AT's East Atlantic Beach home with gratuitous transfers, and attorney's fees. The court, in this opinion, re-evaluated its prior interpretation of Mental Hygiene Law § 81.16(f) and granted AM an award of $16,000 in counsel fees from AT's estate. The court also indicated willingness to entertain a schedule for AM's contact with AT, but adjourned the application regarding the real property and gratuitous transfers, pending further submissions and an accounting from AM regarding his management of AT's affairs and the sale of her Beekman Place property.

GuardianshipIncapacitated PersonReargument MotionMental Hygiene Law Article 81Property ManagementPersonal Needs GuardianFiduciary DutySubstituted JudgmentCounsel FeesEstate Planning
References
7
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03287
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2023

Dejesus v. Downtown Re Holdings LLC

Plaintiff Brian Dejesus was injured when a steel tubing fell through a gap in a sidewalk bridge at a construction site. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, addressing multiple indemnification and breach of contract claims among the owner (Downtown Re Holdings LLC), general contractor (Noble Construction Group, LLC), and various subcontractors. The court found triable issues of fact regarding Noble's negligence and granted Downtown summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Rockledge Scaffold Corp. due to its negligence in bridge erection. Claims against City Safety Compliance Corp. were dismissed as its role was merely advisory. The decision also involved contractual indemnification between Downtown/Noble and The Safety Group, Ltd., granting a breach of contract claim against TSG for failing to procure required insurance.

Construction AccidentSidewalk Bridge DefectIndemnification ClaimsCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor NegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityInsurance ProcurementBreach of Contract
References
12
Case No. ADJ7688956
Regular
Jan 31, 2012

SHARON FRINK vs. SHASTA-TEHAMA-TRINITY JOINT COMMUNITY COLLEGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded prior orders, and returned the case for further proceedings. The issue was whether the applicant must attend a re-evaluation with the same Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) after he moved his office a short distance. The Board found that Labor Code section 4062.3(j) requires parties to utilize the same QME for subsequent disputes if possible. They clarified that Administrative Director Rule 34(b) regarding the QME's office location applies only to initial evaluations, not re-evaluations. Therefore, the applicant's refusal to travel a short distance for re-evaluation was not grounds for a new panel QME.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalQualified Medical Examiner (QME)Re-evaluationLabor Code Section 4062.3(j)Administrative Director Rule 34(b)Administrative Director Rule 36(d)Medical Office LocationUnavailable QMECompel Attendance
References
9
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

In re Butcher

This case addresses three handicapped petitions seeking tuition and maintenance costs at the Summit Residential Treatment Facility under sections 232 and 234 of the Family Court Act. Judge Rudolph Di Blasi found all petitioners qualified for benefits. The court affirmed that tuition costs are reimbursable without parental means testing, but maintenance costs are subject to parental ability to pay. Crucially, the court asserted its discretion to evaluate the reasonableness of charges by service providers, rejecting the City of New York's argument that it must pay inflated costs. The decision detailed inflated administrative costs at Summit and deemed certain staffing ratios an unnecessary luxury at public expense. The court subsequently ordered specific, adjusted amounts for tuition and maintenance for each petitioner, directing the City of New York as the initial payor and the State of New York for partial reimbursement.

Family Court ActHandicapped ChildrenTuition ReimbursementMaintenance CostsParental ContributionJudicial DiscretionReasonableness of ChargesPublic FundsSummit Residential Treatment CenterEducational Costs
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 1989

In re Jessica R.

The Law Guardian appealed an order from Family Court, Westchester County, which granted the father's motion to compel medical and psychological examinations of his daughter, Jessica R., in a child protective proceeding. This proceeding, initiated by the Westchester County Department of Social Services, alleged sexual abuse by the father. The appellate court reviewed the Family Court Act provisions concerning court-appointed versus party-selected examiners and the amended Family Court Act § 1038 (c). While affirming the right to a psychiatric or psychological evaluation by a party-selected professional to aid in defense, the court found it an improvident exercise of discretion to order a second physical examination. This decision was based on Jessica R.'s prior traumatic experience and anxiety during a previous attempt. Consequently, the order was modified to deny the physical examination and affirmed as modified.

Child protective proceedingFamily Court ActMedical examinationPsychological evaluationPsychiatric evaluationSexual abuseDiscoveryAppellate reviewDiscretionary powerPotential harm to child
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Carew

The court considered two child abuse petitions filed by the Suffolk County Department of Social Services against a father, based on unsworn statements from his three and five-year-old children. The respondent father moved for psychiatric evaluations of the children and their mother to defend against the allegations, citing the need for expert assessment of the children's credibility. The court balanced the children's welfare against the father's right to a fair trial, noting the unique challenges of corroborating out-of-court statements in Article 10 proceedings. The court granted the father's request to the extent of ordering a validation interview for both children, stipulating a court-designated examiner if parties could not agree. The request for the mother's examination was denied due to insufficient justification.

Child AbuseFamily Court ActPsychiatric EvaluationChild CredibilityHearsay TestimonyCorroboration RequirementDue ProcessParental RightsSuffolk CountyUnsworn Statements
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,770 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