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. 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. 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. 2020 NY Slip Op 05472 [187 AD3d 452]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2020

Richards v. Security Resources

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted defendant Security Resources' motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiff Alroy Richards' cross-motions. The court found that Security Resources timely moved to dismiss and that the plaintiff's denial of service was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service. Furthermore, the plaintiff's claims for wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation were dismissed for failing to state a cause of action. Negligence claims were barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, and the individual defendant, Joseph Katanga, was found not to have been properly served, rendering discovery motions moot.

Dismissal of complaintMotion to dismissService of processAffidavit of serviceWrongful dischargeAt-will employmentIntentional infliction of emotional distressDefamationQualified privilegeNegligence claims
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Richard E. S.

Petitioner, on behalf of the infant Richard E. S., sought an order for special education funding for the 1975-1976 academic year. Richard, diagnosed with severe emotional problems and undifferentiated schizophrenia, attended the unapproved Perkiomen School. The County of Rockland disputed payment, arguing the school was unapproved and inappropriate. The court found Richard to be a handicapped child in need of special education, that the school district lacked an adequate program, and that the Perkiomen School was an appropriate residential facility based on the advice of Richard's psychiatrists. Accordingly, the County of Rockland was directed to pay $4,955 for Richard's educational services.

Handicapped child educationSpecial educational needsEmotional disturbanceSchizophreniaResidential school placementUnapproved private schoolTuition reimbursementFamily Court ActPsychiatric testimonyParental rights
References
2
Case No. 534520
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Richard Molander

Richard Molander, a mason, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which ruled he did not sustain causally-related lost time. Molander, despite established respiratory conditions, had worked full duty until February 2020. His departure coincided with the revocation of his driver's license and impending disciplinary action. Although an occupational medicine specialist suggested modified duties, the Board found Molander not credible regarding worsening symptoms and insufficient medical evidence linking his condition to his inability to work. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Lost TimeVoluntary WithdrawalDisability BenefitsCausal RelationshipOccupational DiseaseRespiratory ConditionWitness CredibilityInsufficient Medical EvidenceSpirometry ResultsLicense Revocation
References
5
Case No. 533430
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Richard Mallen

Richard Mallen, the claimant, suffered a work-related left leg injury in 1984, leading to a permanent partial disability classification in 1987 and the closure of his case. In 1993, his benefits were suspended due to incarceration. Upon his release in 2018, Mallen sought to reinstate benefits. However, the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a WCLJ's ruling that the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 123, as the case was genuinely closed in 1987 and not reopened within the statutory period. The Appellate Division upheld the Board's decision, concluding that the carrier's 1993 C-8 notice did not constitute a reopening and that Mallen's 2020 application for further action was time-barred.

Workers' Compensation LawStatute of LimitationsCase ReopeningPermanent Partial DisabilityLost Wage BenefitsIncarcerationSuspension of BenefitsTime-barred ClaimAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 458 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