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. 2020 NY Slip Op 00482 [179 AD3d 546]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2020

Matter of Maxine B. v. Richard C.

This case concerns an appeal by Richard C. against an order of protection issued in favor of his mother, Maxine B., by the Family Court of Bronx County. The order was based on a finding that Richard C. committed menacing in the third degree. Richard C. argued that Maxine B. had stated she did not want the order, but the Appellate Division noted that other evidence, including sworn testimony from a social worker and counsel's representations made outside Richard C.'s presence, indicated Maxine B.'s need for protection. The court affirmed the finding that Richard C. intentionally placed Maxine B. in fear of physical injury, resulting in a black eye, and upheld the Family Court's credibility assessments. Other arguments regarding evidence admission, right to counsel, and the social worker's authority were dismissed as unpreserved or without specific prejudice. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the order of protection.

Order of ProtectionMenacing Third DegreeFamily Court ActAppellate DivisionCredibility AssessmentEvidence AdmissibilityRight to CounselFamily OffenseDomestic ViolenceAffirmation
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03327 [205 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

Newman v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., Inc.

Plaintiff Aja Newman appealed two orders related to discovery in her lawsuit against Mount Sinai for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, stemming from sexual assaults committed by defendant Dr. David Newman on her and three other patients. The Supreme Court had denied Newman's motions to compel discovery regarding the identities of the other patients and hospital workers, and granted Mount Sinai's cross-motion for a protective order, citing quality assurance and HIPAA privileges. The Appellate Division reversed both orders, ruling that Mount Sinai failed to prove entitlement to the quality assurance privilege for all requested documents and that the doctor-patient privilege does not cover incidents of abuse. The court also clarified that HIPAA regulations allow for disclosure subject to a qualified protective order. The Appellate Division granted Newman's motions, directing Mount Sinai to disclose patient identities under a protective order, provide identities of Newman's coworkers, produce party statements from ordinary business records, and prepare a privilege log for quality assurance materials for in camera review, remanding the matter for further proceedings.

Discovery DisputeNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionQuality Assurance PrivilegeHIPAADoctor-Patient PrivilegeSexual AssaultPatient ConfidentialityProtective OrderPrivilege Log
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Leon v. Newman

The claimant was injured after falling from a scaffold while plastering a ceiling in an apartment owned by Steven Newman. He sought workers' compensation benefits, claiming an employer-employee relationship with Newman. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a WCLJ decision finding such a relationship, despite Newman being uninsured. However, the appellate court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to establish an employer-employee relationship. The court found that the claimant was a skilled craftsperson who worked autonomously and was hired through an intermediary. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Employer-Employee RelationshipIndependent Contractor StatusScaffold Fall InjuryAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceWitness PreclusionUninsured Employer LiabilityRemand OrderWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Tunison v. P. C. Richards & Son

This case involves an appeal from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning workers' compensation death benefits. The decedent, an employee of Outlaw Trucking Company, was fatally injured while delivering merchandise for P. C. Richards & Son. The Board found that the decedent was a special employee of P. C. Richards & Son and that his death arose out of and in the course of this special employment, making P. C. Richards & Son liable for death benefits. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support the finding of a special employment relationship due to P. C. Richards & Son's control over the decedent's work, and that the death occurred in the course of employment as he was returning truck keys.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmploymentDeath BenefitsEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewControl TestCourse of EmploymentInsurance CarrierTrucking IndustryWorkers' Compensation Board
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richard H. v. Consilvio

Petitioner Richard H., diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, has a history of involuntary commitments and bank robberies. This appeal concerns the Commissioner of Mental Health's application for a retention order in a secure psychiatric facility. A lower court initially ordered his transfer to a nonsecure facility, crediting his testimony and an advisory jury opinion that he was not dangerous. The Appellate Division, upon review, found that the Commissioner had established Richard H. suffers from a "dangerous mental disorder." The court emphasized his history of dangerous behavior, noncompliance with medication, escapes from nonsecure facilities, and delusional beliefs. Therefore, the Supreme Court's order was modified, and Richard H. was ordered to be retained in a secure facility.

Paranoid SchizophreniaInvoluntary CommitmentInsanity AcquitteeDangerous Mental DisorderRetention OrderMental Hygiene LawCriminal Procedure LawMedication NoncomplianceBank RobberyDelusional Beliefs
References
14
Case No. 15-01392
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Music Mix Mobile LLC v. Newman (In re Stage Presence, Inc.)

This adversary proceeding involves claims by Music Mix Mobile, LLC and other plaintiffs against Stage Presence, Inc. and its owner, Allen Newman. Plaintiffs alleged they were not paid for services provided for a benefit concert and sought to hold Mr. Newman personally liable for Stage Presence's debts under alter ego or piercing the corporate veil theories. The court analyzed whether Mr. Newman excessively dominated Stage Presence and if this was used to perpetrate fraud or injustice. The decision concluded that Stage Presence maintained its separate corporate identity in key financial and operational aspects, and Mr. Newman genuinely believed the concert's funding was legitimate. Consequently, the court dismissed the alter ego claims against Mr. Newman while allowing the underlying claims against Stage Presence.

Bankruptcy LawAlter Ego DoctrinePiercing the Corporate VeilCorporate LiabilityCreditor ClaimsDebtor-Creditor LawFraudulent MisrepresentationContractual ObligationsCorporate FormalitiesUndercapitalization
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Sanctioning of Richard N.

This opinion addresses the appropriate sanction for juror Richard N. who intentionally abandoned a summary jury trial and misled the court about his whereabouts, falsely claiming a 'neurological emergency'. Presided over by Justice Martin E. Ritholtz in Queens County, the court initiated a special proceeding to penalize Richard N. for his misconduct. While civil or criminal contempt charges were considered, the court ultimately utilized its inherent powers to impose a less severe sanction. Richard N. confessed and apologized for his deceptive behavior. The court ordered him to pay a $250 fine and determined that his jury service would not be credited, leaving him eligible for future jury duty.

Juror MisconductContempt of CourtSpecial ProceedingJudicial SanctionInherent Powers of CourtJury Duty AbandonmentDeceptive ConductDue ProcessRight to CounselCivil Contempt
References
38
Case No. 531945
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

In the Matter of the Claim of Alroy Richards

Claimant Alroy Richards appealed two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board initially ruled that Richards did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment and denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits. Subsequently, the Board denied his request for reconsideration and/or full Board review. Richards claimed to have experienced pain while moving oxygen tanks at work in April 2017 but failed to seek timely medical treatment or report the incident. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its credibility determinations and finding substantial evidence to support the finding that the proof presented by the claimant was insufficient to demonstrate an accident occurred in the course of his employment.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAccidental InjuryEmployment ScopeUntimely NoticeBoard AffirmationCredibility of ClaimantSubstantial Evidence ReviewMedical CausationReconsideration DenialAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03580 [150 AD3d 1349]
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2017

Claim of Richards v. Massena Central Schools

Mary Ann Richards, a cleaner, sustained neck injuries in March 2010 while working for Massena Central Schools, leading to an established workers' compensation claim and cervical surgery. In June 2013, she sought to amend her claim to include consequential neurological injuries, specifically scapulothoracic crepitation and mandibular dysesthesia. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board denied this amendment, concluding that Richards failed to demonstrate a causal relationship between her established work injury and the alleged consequential conditions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence. Multiple medical professionals, including orthopedic surgeons and neurologists, provided opinions that either could not determine the etiology of Richards' symptoms or found no objective evidence linking them to her work injury or subsequent surgery.

Workers' CompensationNeurological InjuryCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewScapulothoracic CrepitationMandibular DysesthesiaCervical SurgeryIndependent Medical ExaminationBurden of Proof
References
5
Case No. 536034 CV-22-2074
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

Matter of Newman v. Project Renewal, Inc.

The claimant, Hillary Newman, appealed two decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board concerning her established workers' compensation claim. Newman sustained injuries in May 2016 and subsequently had an intervening accident in September 2017. While she disclosed the intervening accident to her treating physician, this information was not available to an independent medical examiner (IME) when she completed a questionnaire on April 27, 2018, denying any subsequent injuries. The Workers' Compensation Board found Newman violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a for knowingly making a false statement and imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the finding of a § 114-a violation, supported by substantial evidence. However, the court modified the duration of the mandatory penalty, ruling it should extend only until June 11, 2018, when the medical report detailing the intervening accident was filed and available to the carrier, rather than until April 9, 2021. The appeal from the earlier Board decision was dismissed as moot.

Workers' CompensationFraudMisrepresentationIndependent Medical ExaminationMandatory PenaltyAppellate ReviewCredibility IssueMaterial FactIntervening AccidentMedical Report Disclosure
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 495 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