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

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

Randall v. Toll

Petitioner, a senior financial secretary at SUNY Stony Brook, was suspended without pay under Civil Service Law section 75 following charges of misappropriation. He challenged the suspension, arguing it violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by denying a pre-suspension hearing. The court evaluated the constitutionality of Civil Service Law section 75(3), which permits temporary suspension without pay pending charge determination. It concluded that the state's interest did not justify postponing a hearing, especially since the petitioner had been reassigned from his sensitive role. Consequently, the court vacated the suspension and ordered the petitioner's immediate reinstatement, emphasizing the necessity of a prior hearing for public employee suspensions.

Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentCivil Service LawPublic Employee RightsSuspension Without PayPre-Suspension HearingGovernmental InterestProperty RightsReinstatementMisconduct Charges
References
4
Case No. ADJ10356570
Regular
Oct 20, 2017

SYRUS YARBROUGH vs. SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE AND SPIRITS, TRUMBALL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted applicant Syrus Yarbrough's Petition for Removal, rescinding a previous order compelling him to attend an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) appointment. The WCAB found that Labor Code section 4067, relied upon by the judge, did not apply as applicant had not yet attended a formal AME evaluation. Furthermore, the WCAB clarified that Labor Code section 4062.2(f) only applies after an AME evaluation has occurred and does not preclude withdrawal from an AME agreement before such an evaluation. The WCAB noted that the applicant could still be ordered to see his regular physician or a Qualified Medical Evaluator.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorPetition to CompelMedical ExaminationSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmLabor Code Section 4067Labor Code Section 4062.2(f)Withdraw from AMEWCAB
References
1
Case No. TI11710087
Regular
Nov 20, 2018

Theodore Davis vs. CITY OF MODESTO, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES, GROUP, INC.

This case involves applicant Theodore Davis's prostate cancer claim against the City of Modesto. The core dispute centers on the admissibility and review of a medical report by Dr. Besses. The Appeals Board initially denied review of Dr. Besses' report but, following a court of appeal remittitur, is now granting removal. The matter is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to re-evaluate the admissibility of Dr. Besses' report under Labor Code section 4605 and related rules, and whether it can be provided to the QME. This decision clarifies that while QME evaluations are required for compensability disputes, privately obtained medical reports may still be admissible.

RemittiturPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code Section 4060Labor Code Section 4605Admissibility of Medical ReportsEx Parte CommunicationCumulative TraumaSpecific Injury
References
9
Case No. ADJ3799579 (VNO 0474814) ADJ1009432 (VNO 0518597)
Regular
Jun 16, 2010

SHAWN PETTWAY vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case concerns whether Labor Code section 4062 or 4062.2 governs the medical evaluation process for applicant Shawn Pettway's injuries. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant school district's petition for removal. The WCAB found that since Pettway's injuries occurred prior to January 1, 2005, the older section 4062 applies, entitling the defendant to select its own Qualified Medical Evaluator if an Agreed Medical Evaluator cannot be reached. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the prior order compelling the parties to agree on an AME or panel.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code Section 4062Labor Code Section 4062.2Industrial InjuriesCampus SupervisorBack InjuryInternal InjuryKidney Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ10033983 ADJ11112700
Regular
Jul 08, 2019

PABLO PEREZ vs. TAYLOR FARMS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted applicant Pablo Perez's Petition for Removal, rescinding the prior finding that a Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) was not a reasonable and necessary medical-legal expense. The WCAB found that an FCE, recommended by Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator Dr. Ali Soozani to assess permanent impairment, provides crucial objective data not fully captured by subjective complaints or a standard physical examination. The Board reasoned that while a physical therapist conducts the FCE, this is permissible under Labor Code section 3209.5 for medical treatment and does not violate Labor Code section 4628 when viewed as a distinct diagnostic tool supporting the QME's overall evaluation. Consequently, the WCAB issued a new Finding of Fact and Order deeming the FCE reasonable and necessary.

Functional Capacity EvaluationMedical-Legal ExpensePanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPermanent ImpairmentActivities of Daily LivingSubstantial EvidenceAlmaraz/GuzmanLabor Code Section 4628Diagnostic ToolMedical Opinion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code of Banco Nacional De Obras Y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 1998

Cataudella v. Kings Bay Housing Section II, Inc.

Plaintiff Alfred Cataudella sought damages for personal injuries, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants Kings Bay Housing Section II, Inc., and Elm Management Co. moved for summary judgment to dismiss this claim, which was initially granted but later denied by the Supreme Court upon the plaintiffs' successful motion for renewal and reargument. On appeal, the higher court modified the lower court's decision, ruling that Labor Law § 240 (1) did not apply as the plaintiff's injuries were not from an elevation-related hazard. Consequently, the appellate court denied the plaintiffs' motion for renewal and reargument, thus effectively granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Furthermore, the third-party defendant Walcat Plumbing and Heating Corp.'s motion to vacate an order of default was affirmed.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppealLabor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-Related HazardDefault JudgmentVacate DefaultProcedural LawNew York LawAppellate Division
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

55th Management Corp. v. Goldman

This case addresses whether an out-of-court statement made to a court evaluator in an Article 81 guardianship proceeding is protected by absolute privilege, thereby defeating a defamation claim. The defendant, a tenant, made allegedly defamatory remarks about a landlord to a court evaluator during the evaluator's investigation for a guardianship proceeding. The court considered if the remarks were pertinent, if a statement to a court evaluator is considered part of a judicial proceeding, and if the speaker had standing. The court found the remarks pertinent, extended the absolute privilege to statements made to court evaluators given their role as court agents, and affirmed the defendant's standing as a potential witness. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was granted.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsCourt EvaluatorGuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Tenant-Landlord DisputeMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Scope of Privilege
References
44
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02008 [237 AD3d 429]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2025

Hartrum v. Montefiore Hosp. Hous. Section II Inc.

Plaintiff Kyle Hartrum, an employee of Electronic Service Solutions, Inc. (ESS), sustained severe arm lacerations while removing communications equipment from a building roof owned by Montefiore Hospital Housing Section II Inc. The accident occurred when a piece of sheet metal being hand-hoisted swung and struck him. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's decision, granting Hartrum summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Monte Housing, SBA Site Management, LLC, Flo TV Incorporated, and KMB Design Group, LLC. The court also dismissed Hartrum's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against all defendants and granted several contractual indemnity claims among the parties, including Montefiore, SBA, Flo, KMB, and ESS.

Labor Law § 240(1) LiabilitySafe Place to WorkSummary Judgment GrantContractual IndemnificationConstruction Site AccidentHoisting SafetyAppellate Division ReviewLessor/Sublessor LiabilityMeans and Methods of WorkNegligence Dismissal
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 5,468 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