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

Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C.

Nancy Kosakow sued her former employer, New Rochelle Radiology Associates, alleging FMLA violations and wrongful denial of severance pay under ERISA. The court previously found FMLA claims collaterally estopped but remanded the ERISA claim to the Plan Administrator for a determination on severance eligibility. The Administrator denied severance, finding Kosakow not "terminated" and, even if so, not entitled to severance. This court reversed the "not terminated" finding, stating Kosakow was terminated due to a reduction in force. However, the court affirmed the Administrator's denial of severance, concluding that the "where applicable" clause in the Plan gave the Administrator broad discretion and that Kosakow's circumstances did not warrant severance. The court found that the denial was not unreasonable, even when considering a severance payment made to another full-time employee under different circumstances.

ERISASeverance PayFMLATerminationSummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewPlan Administrator DiscretionEmployee BenefitsReduction in ForcePolicy Manual
References
8
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04625
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2024

People v. Paulino

Randy Paulino was convicted of attempted murder in the second degree for a violent assault on a 72-year-old victim. Paulino, diagnosed with severe mental illnesses including schizoaffective disorder and schizophrenia, attacked the victim after discontinuing his prescribed medication. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed his eight-year prison sentence, with the majority concluding the sentence was appropriate despite Paulino's mitigating mental health history and lack of prior criminal convictions. A dissenting opinion argued for a reduced sentence, emphasizing Paulino's traumatic background, severe mental illness, and the potential for more effective community-based mental health treatment to aid his rehabilitation.

Attempted MurderSchizoaffective DisorderSchizophreniaMental Illness DefenseSubstance AbuseSentencing AppealAppellate ReviewMitigating CircumstancesCriminal LawRehabilitation
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paykina ex rel. E.L. v. Lewin

Plaintiff Natalya Paykina initiated this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of her son, E.L., a minor with severe mental illness in the custody of the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). The complaint alleged that E.L.'s prolonged confinement in the Adolescent Offender Separation Unit (AOSU) at Hudson Correctional Facility constituted cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. E.L. exhibited mental health deterioration and self-harming behaviors during his segregation. The Court found that Plaintiff demonstrated irreparable harm and a clear likelihood of success on the merits. Expert testimony highlighted the severe psychological damage solitary confinement inflicts on mentally ill juveniles. Consequently, the Court granted a preliminary injunction, ordering Defendants to immediately remove E.L. from the AOSU.

Eighth AmendmentCruel and Unusual PunishmentSolitary ConfinementJuvenile OffendersMental HealthPreliminary InjunctionDOCCSHudson Correctional FacilityAdolescent Offender Separation UnitDeliberate Indifference
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2001

In re Trebor UU.

Respondent, the mother of two sons, Trebor (born in 1992) and Tahran (born in 1994), appealed an order from the Family Court of Clinton County which terminated her parental rights on the grounds of mental illness. The children had been in the care and custody of the petitioner since December 1998, following a prior finding of neglect. In October 2000, the petitioner filed a petition to terminate parental rights. The Family Court determined that respondent suffered from a mental illness, as defined by Social Services Law § 384-b (6) (a), rendering her unable to provide proper and adequate care for her children for the present and foreseeable future. Respondent challenged the expert testimony's methodology and the sufficiency of evidence regarding her future incapacity. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, finding that the expert testimony was sufficiently based and that there was clear and convincing evidence that respondent's mental illness prevented her from caring for her children, despite conflicting expert opinions on future improvement.

Parental Rights TerminationMental Illness (Parent)Family Court ActSocial Services LawExpert TestimonyClinical PsychologyPersonality DisorderAppellate DecisionChild WelfareForeseeability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2012

Claim of Smith v. Oneida Ltd.

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning her husband's death benefits. In 1991, the decedent sustained a compensable lung injury, leading to permanent partial disability and continuous workers' compensation benefits until his death in September 2010. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed that the death was causally related to his work-related illness, awarding death benefits to the claimant. The self-insured employer and its claims administrator appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing that a compensable illness need not be the sole cause of death, only a contributing factor. Evidence included the death certificate listing sepsis and respiratory failure, and a C-64 medical report from the decedent's long-term physician stating the death was directly or indirectly caused by the work-related illness.

death benefitscausal relationshipoccupational illnessrespiratory failuresepsispermanent partial disabilityWorkers' Compensation Board appealmedical report evidencecontributing factor
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2009

Trzaska v. Allied Frozen Storage, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied the plaintiffs' motion to sever workers' compensation claims from their personal injury action. The appellate court, composed of Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Peradotto, Green, and Gorski, JJ., unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding the denial of the severance motion.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSeverance MotionAppellate ReviewSupreme CourtErie CountyOrder Denial
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kenneth V.

This is an appeal from a Family Court order that found respondent August V., Ill neglected his children. The proceeding was initiated by the petitioner, alleging neglect due to the parents' refusal to accept intensive counseling for two children exhibiting aggressive behavior, including wielding a knife. The Family Court initially found the father neglected all seven children. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding no evidence of parental misconduct by the father. The court determined that treatment recommendations were not directly communicated to the father, and he was unaware of the escalated fighting. Consequently, the petition against August V., Ill was dismissed due to insufficient proof of neglect.

NeglectChild protectionParental misconductFamily lawChild welfareAbuseErie CountyAppellate reviewParental responsibilityMental health services
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Evelyn B.

The petitioner initiated proceedings to terminate the parental rights of the respondent, mother of Evelyn B., alleging mental illness or retardation after Evelyn B. was adjudicated neglected. The Family Court, Clinton County, terminated parental rights, relying on testimony from a court-appointed clinical psychologist who diagnosed the respondent with an untreatable learning disorder and mixed personality disorder, rendering her unable to provide proper care. The respondent appealed, presenting testimony from her treating therapist suggesting potential improvement. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination due to the respondent's mental illness and upholding the Family Court's discretion in crediting the court-appointed psychologist over the respondent's therapist, whose expert qualification was also appropriately denied.

Parental Rights TerminationMental IllnessChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewClinical PsychologyForensic EvaluationPersonality DisorderLearning DisorderExpert Witness Credibility
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2001

Claim of McCabe v. Watertown Correctional Facility

Claimant, a correction officer, worked long, exhaustive shifts in extremely cold conditions during a severe ice storm in January 1998, leading to an upper respiratory infection and pneumonia. Despite his illness, he continued to work, subsequently experiencing seizures and being diagnosed with postencephalitic epilepsy on February 11, 1998. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board established his case, finding accident, notice, and causal relationship, but the employer appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing uncontroverted medical evidence that the claimant's severe fatigue from his work environment depressed his immune system, making him susceptible to the virus causing his epilepsy.

Workers' CompensationPostencephalitic EpilepsyWork-Related IllnessImmune System DepressionExtreme Weather ConditionsCorrection OfficerOccupational HazardCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceSubstantial Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hull v. Aurora Corp. of Illinois

Plaintiff Gary Hull suffered a severe arm injury while operating machinery for F & R Die Castings Company, Inc. in 1978. The machinery had been acquired from defendant Aurora Corporation of Illinois, for whom Hull previously worked. Hull filed a personal injury action, and after F & R Die Castings successfully moved for summary judgment based on Workers’ Compensation Law exclusivity, Aurora also moved for summary judgment on the same grounds. Special Term denied Aurora’s motion, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that Aurora, as a prior employer and now a third-party tortfeasor, could not invoke the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions, as Hull's injury did not arise out of his employment with Aurora.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExclusivity ProvisionsThird-Party LiabilityPrior EmploymentNegligenceBreach of WarrantyStrict LiabilityPersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,917 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