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

Claim of Coratti v. Jon Josef Hair & Colour Group

The Workers' Compensation Board denied a claimant's motion to preclude a workers’ compensation carrier’s consultant report, which was based solely on a review of medical records, not an independent medical examination (IME). The claimant argued non-compliance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 137 (1) (b), a provision requiring notice if an IME is performed. The Board concluded the statute does not apply to records-review-only reports. An appellate court affirmed, holding that the plain language of § 137 (1) (b) explicitly refers to practitioners who have performed or will perform an IME, thereby excluding those who solely review records. The court emphasized that statutory interpretation must adhere to plain language, leaving policy arguments to the Legislature.

IME reportsrecords reviewWorkers' Compensation Lawstatutory interpretationpreclusion motioncausationoccupational illnessdue processlegislative intent
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Tartakoff v. New York State Education Department

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviewed a determination by the Board of Regents to suspend a licensed clinical social worker's license for two years due to professional misconduct. The petitioner was accused of negligence, incompetence, and unprofessional conduct, specifically for socializing with clients and failing to maintain accurate records between October 2004 and June 2008. The Hearing Panel and Regents Review Committee found the petitioner guilty, leading to a modified penalty of a five-year suspension, with part stayed, and five years of probation. The petitioner challenged the determination, arguing improper admission of client records due to social worker privilege and unfair hearing due to counsel disqualification. The court upheld the determination, finding no violation of privilege and affirming the disqualification of counsel due to a conflict of interest. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings and the penalty was not disproportionate.

Professional MisconductSocial Worker LicenseLicense SuspensionCPLR Article 78Board of RegentsNew York State Education DepartmentClient ConfidentialityConflict of InterestAttorney DisqualificationSubstantial Evidence Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1976

In re Louis F.

This proceeding was initiated by foster parents under Social Services Law section 392 to review the foster care status of the child Louis F., aiming to free him for adoption. Respondents, the Department of Social Services, Catholic Home Bureau, and the natural mother, sought to continue foster care, with the agency planning for the child's discharge to the natural mother. The foster parents moved for prehearing disclosure of various records related to the child and his natural parents, which the Family Court denied for lack of sufficient necessity. The Appellate Division affirmed this denial. The court reiterated that while foster parents, as parties in a foster care review, may obtain disclosure upon a proper showing of necessity coupled with in camera viewing by the Family Court, in this instance, after its own appellate in camera review, it found no abuse of discretion in the Family Court's decision.

Foster CareChild WelfareSocial Services LawDisclosureIn Camera InspectionFamily CourtAppellate ReviewBest Interest of the ChildParental RightsAdoption Proceedings
References
1
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01011
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2022

Hamm v. Review Assoc., LLC

The plaintiff, Peter Hamm, an employee, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while servicing a security system at premises owned by Review Associates, LLC and leased by Fresh Direct, LLC. He initiated a personal injury action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified this order, denying summary judgment for the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against both defendants due to triable issues of fact regarding whether the work constituted "repairs" or "routine maintenance." Additionally, the court denied summary judgment for the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Fresh Direct, LLC, as it failed to establish a lack of notice regarding the defective ladder. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against both defendants and the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Review Associates, LLC.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionDuty to Maintain Safe PremisesRoutine Maintenance vs. RepairDangerous Condition
References
44
Case No. Motion sequence Nos. 002 and 005
Regular Panel Decision

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc.

UMG Recordings, Inc. sued Escape Media Group, Inc. for common-law copyright infringement and unfair competition. Escape asserted DMCA safe harbor and CDA preemption defenses, along with Donnelly Act and tortious interference counterclaims. The court denied UMG's motion to dismiss the DMCA safe harbor defense, ruling it applies to pre-1972 recordings. However, the court granted UMG's motion to dismiss the CDA preemption defense, clarifying that the CDA's intellectual property exemption covers both federal and state laws. Additionally, Escape's Donnelly Act counterclaim was dismissed, but UMG's motions to dismiss the tortious interference counterclaims were denied, rejecting defenses like the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and economic interest.

Copyright InfringementDMCA Safe HarborPre-1972 RecordingsUnfair CompetitionCommunications Decency ActTortious InterferenceDonnelly ActNew York Common LawInternet Service ProvidersAntitrust
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mamone v. Griege

The case involves an appeal concerning a Workers' Compensation Board decision, filed July 21, 1978, which denied an employer and its insurance carrier's application to proceed on a shortened record for their primary appeal. The primary claim stemmed from a 1957 accident leading to the claimant's total and permanent disability, with the Board later modifying a referee's decision to award nursing services retroactive to 1974. The appellants sought to exclude certain medical reports and hearing minutes from the shortened record, but the Board found these necessary for a proper review. The court affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting arguments that the Board erred in not holding a hearing (citing its discretion under 12 NYCRR 300.18 (d)) and that its denial was arbitrary or an abuse of discretion, concluding the Board's decision was reasonable.

shortened recordappellate procedureWorkers' Compensation Boarddiscretionary powermedical evidencetotal permanent disabilitynursing servicesprocedural errorarbitrary and capriciousadministrative appeal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bal v. Sidewalk of New York Productions, Inc.

Claimant filed a discrimination claim under Workers' Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim. The employer contended the termination was due to unsatisfactory performance prior to the reported injury. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied the claim, questioning the claimant's testimony and a tape recording. A Board panel affirmed, and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied full Board review. The appellate court affirmed the Board's discretionary denial, finding no abuse of discretion as the claimant had ample opportunity to litigate the credibility issue and further review was unwarranted.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeDiscrimination ClaimCredibility IssueDiscretionary ReviewFull Board ReviewPro Se RepresentationAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionUnsatisfactory Job Performance
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 1998

Claim of Devivo v. Sizzler Restaurant

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for a back and arm injury from a slip and fall at work in 1993. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge allowed the claim, but a Board panel later reversed, finding no credible evidence the accident arose out of or in the course of employment. Claimant's subsequent request for full Board review was denied. Her appeal was dismissed due to being filed beyond the statutory period. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting the record contained substantial evidence to support the Board's finding against the claimant, especially given inconsistencies in her account. The denial of full Board review was also deemed appropriate as the 'newly discovered evidence' was not genuinely new.

workers' compensation benefitsslip and fall injurycausal relationshipemployment accidentBoard panel reversalfull Board reviewappeal dismissalstatutory time periodnewly discovered evidenceevidentiary inconsistencies
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stackhouse v. Colvin

Plaintiff Latoya Stackhouse appealed the denial of supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) previously found the plaintiff not disabled, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. The District Court reviewed the ALJ's decision, finding that while the ALJ followed the required five-step analysis, the record was incomplete and inadequate due to the absence of comprehensive medical records. The court determined that the ALJ erred by affording 'great weight' to a consulting psychiatrist's opinion that was based on an incomplete review of the plaintiff's medical history, failing to consider several diagnosed psychological conditions. Consequently, the District Court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case, instructing the Commissioner to obtain additional medical reports, updated treatment records, and new consultative examinations to develop a complete record before redetermining the plaintiff's disability status.

Disability benefitsSupplemental security incomeSocial Security ActAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ)Remand for further proceedingsIncomplete medical recordResidual functional capacity (RFC)Consultative examinationPsychiatric conditionsBipolar disorder
References
14
Case No. ADJ9958753 ADJ9958758
Regular
Jul 29, 2019

Raul Medrano vs. Stalwork, Inc., Everest National Insurance Co., American Claims Management, Inc., State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained by a carpenter. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found no substantial medical evidence and ordered the record to be developed. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, overruled the defendant's objection to applicant's exhibits to allow the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) to review them, and affirmed the order for further record development. The Board found this necessary to ensure substantial justice and allow the QME to review critical medical records for proper adjudication.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJAOE/COEQMESubstantial Medical EvidenceDevelop the RecordAdmissibility of ExhibitsMandatory Settlement Conference
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 7,163 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