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

Taylor v. Board of Regents of University

Petitioner, a licensed optometrist in New York since 1981, faced eight specifications of professional misconduct between 1980 and 1985 while employed by American Vision Center. Charges included negligence, gross negligence, practicing beyond authorized scope by administering Neosporin, and unprofessional conduct for delegating responsibilities to unlicensed staff and failing to wear a name tag. A Hearing Panel found petitioner guilty, recommending a license suspension and fine. The Regents Review Committee modified these findings, and the respondent further narrowed the period of charges. Petitioner challenged the determination, alleging denial of due process due to lack of specificity and delay. The Court rejected the due process claims, finding charges specific and no actual prejudice from delay. While the Court found substantial evidence for negligence, unauthorized practice, and unprofessional conduct, it annulled the finding of gross negligence. Despite this annulment, the Court upheld the original penalty, modifying the determination only to reflect the removal of the gross negligence finding, and otherwise confirming the decision.

Optometry license suspensionProfessional misconductUnlicensed practiceDelegation of professional responsibilitiesGross negligenceDue processAdministrative reviewCPLR Article 78Education LawRegents Review Committee
References
11
Case No. ADJ3533713
Regular
Nov 07, 2011

JUANA LOPEZ vs. THE MERCHANT OF TENNIS, HARTFORD INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removed this matter for the purpose of imposing sanctions. The WCAB found that the petition for reconsideration filed by SIR Practice Solutions, LLC on behalf of several lien claimants was skeletal, unintelligible, and violated multiple WCAB rules regarding evidentiary and legal support. The lien claimants and SIR Practice Solutions, LLC failed to object to the Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions within the allotted time. Therefore, the WCAB imposed sanctions of $250.00 against each individual lien claimant and found SIR Practice Solutions, LLC jointly and severally liable for these sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionsLien ClaimantsSIR Practice SolutionsPetition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionAppeals Board Rule 10846Labor Code Section 5813Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Stowe & Aircooled Motors, Inc.

This case involves a motion to compel arbitration under section 1450 of the Civil Practice Act, related to the discharge of Gerald Mersfelder. A cross-motion was filed to dismiss the application. The court addressed preliminary objections regarding the local union's standing as a contracting party, affirming its involvement. It was determined that the arbitration clause was limited and did not cover all disputes, particularly unfair labor practices which fall under the National Labor Relations Board's jurisdiction. The court also considered its own jurisdiction under the Civil Practice Act, noting that the controversy arose before amendments broadening the scope of arbitrable subjects took effect. Ultimately, the court found no basis for arbitration as the grievance did not involve the interpretation or application of the contract's provisions.

ArbitrationLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee DischargeJurisdictionCivil Practice ActMotion to CompelMotion to DismissUnion RightsContract Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartman v. Bell

This case involves an appeal concerning a contract for the sale of a medical practice. A plaintiff physician agreed to sell his practice to defendant physicians, with payment contingent on a percentage of industrial medicine income over three years, including a minimum payment, and further payments for six months thereafter. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against them. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding the agreement constituted an illegal fee-splitting arrangement under Education Law § 6509-a. The court emphasized that the law would not provide relief to parties involved in illegal arrangements, upholding public policy.

Fee-splittingMedical Practice SaleBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentUnjust EnrichmentPublic PolicyIllegal ContractProfessional Medical GroupAppellate DecisionContract Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. Cuevas

Petitioner filed an improper practice charge against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging that Level I supervisors were performing work previously exclusive to Level II supervisors, specifically zone supervision, booth audits, and investigations. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found a violation for zone supervision but not for the other tasks. PERB subsequently reversed the ALJ's decision regarding zone supervision, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish exclusivity. The petitioner then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination. The court, reviewing PERB's decision for substantial evidence, found that the petitioner did not meet its burden of demonstrating exclusivity for any of the disputed tasks due to significant overlap in supervisor duties. Consequently, PERB's determination dismissing the improper practice charge was confirmed.

improper practicepublic sector laborsupervisory rolesjob dutiesexclusivityCPLR article 78PERBNYCTACivil Service Lawzone supervision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reitman v. Mills

Petitioner's license to practice as a certified social worker was revoked in 1988 after pleading guilty to sodomy in the second degree. Following probation, he sought restoration of his license, citing rehabilitation efforts. Despite a peer subcommittee's recommendation for restoration, the Committee on the Professions and the Board of Regents recommended denial, a decision upheld by the Commissioner of Education. Petitioner's CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging this denial was dismissed by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, with the court finding no abuse of discretion given the gravity of the offense, the petitioner's admitted ongoing struggles with sexual attraction to adolescent males, and concerns regarding public safety, especially as he intended to operate a private practice from his home.

License RestorationProfessional MisconductSodomyFelony ConvictionRehabilitationPublic SafetyJudicial ReviewAdministrative DiscretionSocial WorkerAppellate Affirmation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2011

Kraft v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Dr. John Kraft, D.C., representing Dana Schepanski, sued State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. for denied no-fault benefits related to chiropractic services, specifically manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) of the spine and hips. Schepanski, a motor vehicle accident victim, underwent MUA after traditional chiropractic care proved ineffective. State Farm contested the claim, arguing MUA on the hip joint was outside a chiropractor's scope of practice and lacked medical necessity. Judge Carmen R. Velasquez ruled that MUA, when properly administered and related to vertebral column issues, is within a New York chiropractor's lawful scope. The court further found that State Farm failed to demonstrate a lack of medical necessity, affirming the procedure's justification given Schepanski's persistent condition. Consequently, the court awarded Dr. Kraft the disputed amount along with statutory interest, attorney fees, and costs.

Chiropractic ServicesNo-Fault BenefitsManipulation Under Anesthesia (MUA)Scope of PracticeMedical NecessityEducation LawWorkers' Compensation BoardSpinal ManipulationHip Joint TreatmentInsurance Denial
References
8
Case No. 01 Civ. 3137
Regular Panel Decision

Leider v. Ralfe

The case involves objections from plaintiffs Andrew Leider, George Vuoso, and Robert Hallowell, along with amici curiae, to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation regarding class certification of state law claims against De Beers Group. The plaintiffs alleged price-fixing, anticompetitive conduct, and deceptive practices in the diamond industry. Judge Baer adopted the R&R in part, denying the motion to certify state law claims, including Donnelly Act claims due to state law prohibitions on class actions for statutory penalties. Additionally, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349 and 350 claims were dismissed for lack of actionable deception and failure to allege reliance on false advertising. The court found De Beers' monopolistic practices, while problematic, were not sufficiently secretive to constitute deception under § 349. A pre-trial conference is scheduled for February 2, 2005, to address the scope of injunctive relief for the remaining federal claims.

AntitrustClass ActionDeceptive PracticesFalse AdvertisingDonnelly ActSherman ActWilson Tariff ActDiamond IndustryMonopolyConsumer Protection
References
49
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 24179
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2024

Matter of City of New York v. Ball

The City of New York challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets, which found that Local Law 202 (banning the sale of foie gras in NYC) unreasonably restricts farming operations within agricultural districts, violating Agriculture and Markets Law § 305-a. Local Law 202 aimed to prohibit the sale of force-fed products due to animal welfare concerns, which the City viewed as inhumane, though it did not directly regulate on-farm practices. The State respondents and intervenor-respondent farms (La Belle Farm, Inc. and Hudson Valley Foie Gras) argued that Local Law 202, despite being an indirect sales ban, significantly impacted the economic viability of foie gras producers in agricultural districts by cutting off a major market. The court found that the Commissioner rationally determined Local Law 202 fell within the scope of Agriculture and Markets Law § 305-a, as its purpose and direct consequence were to indirectly command farms to alter their practices, which the City lacked direct power to do. Upholding the Commissioner's decision, the court denied the City's petition and dismissed the proceeding, concluding that the State's policy of promoting agriculture takes priority over local animal welfare concerns unless human health or safety is threatened, which was not the case here.

Local Law 202Foie Gras BanAgriculture and Markets LawFarm OperationsAgricultural DistrictsAnimal WelfareHome Rule PowersPreemptionSales BanJudicial Review
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1977

Prate v. Freedman

This case involved white applicants who sued the City of Rochester, New York, alleging reverse discrimination in police officer hiring practices that favored minority applicants. The plaintiffs challenged a prior consent decree from Howard v. Freedman, which had established affirmative action measures. Chief Judge Curtin dismissed the consolidated actions, ruling it an impermissible collateral attack on the Howard decree due to the plaintiffs' failure to intervene timely. The court also held that the Constitution permits limited preferences for previously discriminated groups and dismissed pendent state law claims as superseded by federal law. Finally, the court awarded attorney fees to the defendant-intervenors, finding the plaintiffs' suit unreasonable and vexatious.

Reverse DiscriminationAffirmative ActionPolice RecruitmentEmployment LawCollateral Attack DoctrineConsent DecreeJudicial ReviewAttorney Fee AwardSubject Matter JurisdictionState Law Preemption
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,242 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