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
Jul 25, 2007

Wahid v. Long Island Railroad

The case involves a unique issue regarding the payment for an unassisted sign language interpreter, Gabriel Grayson, for deaf plaintiff Farrah Wahid in a personal injury trial against Long Island R.R. Co. Due to an inability to secure a second interpreter, Grayson agreed to work alone if paid a double per diem rate, which the court approved. Justice Markey's opinion explains this decision, citing principles of contract law and the imperative for accommodations for disabled persons under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court highlights a critical shortage of skilled American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters in New York courts, detailing challenges such as credentialing, non-competitive pay rates, and the increased demand from video relay services. The decision emphasizes that justice must be seen, heard, and undeniably interpreted for hearing-impaired litigants.

Sign Language InterpretationInterpreter CompensationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Deaf LitigantsCourt PolicyJudicial DiscretionAccess to JusticeJudiciary LawCourt AdministrationContractual Agreements
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 1979

In re David R.

The New York City Department of Social Services petitioned for approval to transfer the custody of David R. under a 'Voluntary Placement Agreement' signed by the maternal grandmother. The child was under two months old and hospitalized at the time. The court evaluated the validity of the agreement, questioning if the maternal grandmother had the right or understanding to place the child, particularly due to a language barrier as she only spoke Spanish and no interpreter was provided during the signing. The court found no binding contract existed, citing the grandmother's lack of authority to place the child, the language problem, and deliberate misrepresentation by the department. Furthermore, the court found that the placement was not in the child's best interests, as the department failed to contact the parents before accepting placement. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the child was to be returned to the parents.

Child CustodyVoluntary Placement AgreementSocial Services LawContract ValidityLanguage BarrierDue ProcessParental RightsMaternal GrandmotherFamily Court JurisdictionBest Interests of the Child
References
11
Case No. 01-17-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2022

Wes Gilbreath, Jr., Stacey Gilbreath Powell, Elliot Gilbreath, and Mark Ritter SignAd, Ltd., SignAd GP, LLC, Ben Nevis West, Ltd., Culcreuch West, LLC, Big Signs & Leasing 1, Ltd., Big Signs & Leasing 2, Ltd., Big Signs & Leasing 3, Ltd. El Al v. Lisa R. Gilbreath Horan, Individually and as Trustee of the Lisa Gilbreath Horan 2001 Irrevocable Trust

This appellate opinion addresses a dispute within the Gilbreath family business, involving appeals from a trial court's amended final judgment on various claims. The case originated from conflicts after the patriarch's death, leading to allegations of financial mismanagement and an involuntary commitment proceeding against Lisa R. Gilbreath Horan. Appellants challenged judgments on malicious prosecution, defamation, and breach of fiduciary duty. The appellate court partly affirmed, reversed, and remanded the judgment, notably finding that Lisa lacked standing for certain derivative claims, reversing the jury's finding of oppression, and modifying injunctive relief. The case also involves remands for reconsideration of attorney's fees and the issue of judicial expulsion.

Malicious ProsecutionDefamationBreach of Fiduciary DutyBusiness DisputesLimited PartnershipsLimited Liability CompaniesCorporate GovernanceShareholder RightsInvoluntary CommitmentAttorney's Fees
References
138
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2001

Constance v. State University of New York Health Science Center

Plaintiffs, Vernal and Navella Constance, sued State University of New York Health Science Center (SUNY HSC) for allegedly failing to provide a sign language interpreter, violating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Mrs. Constance, who is deaf, received emergency treatment at SUNY HSC in 1996, where she and her husband requested an interpreter, but none was provided. The Hospital claimed to have a policy for hearing-impaired patients and asserted it requested an interpreter from an agency, but it failed to appear. The Court denied Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief, finding they lacked standing due to insufficient likelihood of future encounters with the Hospital. Furthermore, the Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the issue of damages, determining that the Hospital's failure to follow up on the interpreter request, while possibly negligent, did not amount to deliberate indifference necessary to establish intentional discrimination under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act.

ADA ComplianceRehabilitation ActSign Language InterpreterDisability RightsMedical CommunicationSummary JudgmentStanding LawInjunctive ReliefDeliberate IndifferenceIntentional Discrimination
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Soo Tsui

The case involves an appeal from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board regarding Language Services Associates, Inc.'s (LSA) liability for unemployment insurance contributions. A claimant, a Cantonese and Mandarin interpreter, filed for benefits after ceasing work for LSA. The Department of Labor determined she was an employee, not an independent contractor, making LSA liable. LSA appealed, but an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the Department's determination. The court, in turn, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship based on LSA's control over assignments, payment practices, and performance monitoring. The court also upheld LSA's liability for similarly situated individuals and found no conflict with Department of Labor guidelines for the translating and interpreting industry.

Employment StatusIndependent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipUnemployment Insurance ContributionsInterpretersTranslation ServicesDepartment of LaborUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardSubstantial EvidenceWorker Classification
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2006

McNamara v. Tourneau, Inc.

In this employment discrimination case under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), pro se plaintiff Charles McNamara and defendant Tourneau, Inc. reached a settlement during court-ordered mediation, signing a stipulation that included "Standard 21 day language." McNamara later refused to sign a formal agreement, alleging misrepresentation during mediation and asserting his right to revoke. Tourneau moved to enforce the settlement, arguing it was a binding contract. The Court found the stipulation to be a fully binding preliminary agreement. However, due to ambiguity in the "Standard 21 day language"—which pertained to the ADEA's 21-day consideration and 7-day revocation periods—and considering extrinsic evidence, including Tourneau's own proposed formal agreement, the Court concluded that McNamara retained the right to revoke prior to signing the formal contract. Consequently, Tourneau's motion to enforce the settlement was denied, and the case was reinstated, as McNamara's revocation was deemed timely.

Employment DiscriminationADA ClaimADEA WaiverSettlement EnforcementContract AmbiguityMediation ProgramPro Se PlaintiffRevocation RightsOWBPA ComplianceNew York Contract Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 1998

Friscia v. New Plan Realty Trust

Ramapo Sign Co. appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County. The original order granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) and granted cross-motions for common-law indemnification against Ramapo. The appellate court modified the order by denying the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, citing a factual question about the injured plaintiff's work. It also modified the indemnification grants to be conditional upon the plaintiffs' success in the main action, while otherwise affirming the lower court's decision regarding indemnification. The appellate court found no evidence that United Retail or Delaware Valley Sign Corp. exercised control over the injured plaintiff's work.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentCommon-law IndemnificationAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyElevated Work SitesFactual QuestionVicarious LiabilitySubcontractor
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Yovanny L.

This case addresses the accuracy of court interpreter translations in a juvenile delinquency proceeding. The Assistant Corporation Counsel moved to strike the complainant's testimony, alleging significant errors by the court-appointed Mandarin interpreter. After conducting a hearing and considering testimony from both the Assistant Corporation Counsel and the interpreter, the court acknowledged that some minor errors in translation and interpreter conduct occurred. However, the court ultimately found these errors to be isolated instances and not sufficiently serious or pervasive to cause major prejudice to any party. Consequently, the drastic remedy of striking the testimony and starting anew was denied, and the trial was ordered to resume with a different Mandarin interpreter.

Juvenile DelinquencyCourt InterpretersTranslation AccuracyDue Process RightsEvidentiary MotionTestimony AdmissibilityMandarin LanguageFamily Court ProcedureJudicial ReviewProcedural Errors
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00229
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

Matter of Patsis (Legal Interpreting Servs., Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case concerns an appeal by Legal Interpreting Services, Inc. (LIS) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had ruled that Louiza Patsis, a linguist working for LIS, was an employee and that LIS was liable for unemployment insurance contributions. LIS contended that Patsis was an independent contractor and challenged the Board's adherence to Department of Labor guidelines. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the finding of an employment relationship. The court noted the control LIS exercised over its linguists through a written agreement and job assignments, and found no inconsistency with the Department of Labor guidelines.

unemployment insuranceemployment relationshipindependent contractorappellate divisionlabor lawunemployment benefitsstatutory interpretationsubstantial evidenceadministrative reviewlegal interpreting
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00228 [201 AD3d 1164]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

Matter of Debora (Legal Interpreting Servs., Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

This case concerns an appeal by Legal Interpreting Services, Inc. (LIS) from decisions by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board determined that Fausto Debora, a linguist, was an employee of LIS and that LIS was liable for unemployment insurance contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that substantial evidence supported the existence of an employment relationship. The court noted that LIS exercised sufficient control over its linguists by screening qualifications, negotiating pay, and assigning jobs, despite some flexibility offered to the linguists. The decision also dismissed LIS's argument regarding Department of Labor guidelines, stating no inconsistency was found with established common-law tests for employment.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceLinguist ServicesControl TestDepartment of Labor GuidelinesEmployer LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 2,666 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