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. 2025 NY Slip Op 06230 [243 AD3d 1032]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2025

Matter of Qureshi v. Rite Aid Corp.

Claimant Abid A. Qureshi appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found him in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a for making false representations. Qureshi had established claims for physical injuries and major depressive disorder, for which he received benefits. An investigation, including a review of tax returns and social media, revealed that Qureshi was involved in operating multiple businesses and had engaged in extensive travel, contradicting his claims of social withdrawal and inability to work. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding that Qureshi's failure to disclose these activities constituted a material misrepresentation to obtain benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding of a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a.

False RepresentationWorkers' Compensation Law 114-aIndemnity Benefits DisqualificationBusiness Ownership DisclosureSocial Media EvidenceCredibility AssessmentMaterial MisrepresentationAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionTemporary Partial Disability
References
9
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01015 [169 AD3d 1479]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2019

Matter of Monroe County Fedn. of Social Workers, IUE-CWA Local 381 v. Stander

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, dismissed a CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced by the Monroe County Federation of Social Workers. Petitioner sought to compel Hon. Thomas A. Stander, a retired Supreme Court Justice, to render a judgment in an underlying special proceeding. The petition was found untimely, filed in August 2018, beyond the four-month statute of limitations from the December 2017 refusal of demand. Additionally, it was jurisdictionally defective due to a lack of personal jurisdiction over the respondent. Finally, the court concluded the petition was without merit, as mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy for mandatory, not discretionary, acts, and the respondent's "decision and order" was deemed a judgment from which petitioner failed to appeal.

Mandamus to CompelCPLR Article 78Timeliness of ActionPersonal JurisdictionExtraordinary RemedyAppellate ProcedureJudgment EntrySpecial ProceedingSupreme Court JusticeRetired Justice
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Gans

This court opinion addresses whether a certified social worker can be qualified as an expert witness to provide testimony regarding a defendant's mental capacity to proceed and future competency. The defense sought to qualify Hillel Bodek, a certified social worker specializing in forensic clinical social work, as an expert witness for these purposes. The court meticulously reviewed the qualifications of clinical social workers, acknowledging their critical role in the diagnosis of mental disorders, including their involvement in the development of the DSM III. Despite statutory provisions in CPL article 730 outlining who may serve as psychiatric examiners, the court emphasized that other appropriately trained and experienced experts can also offer testimony on competence. Ultimately, the court ruled in the affirmative, concluding that certified social workers with demonstrated training and supervised clinical experience in diagnosis and capacity assessment are qualified to provide expert testimony on these crucial issues.

Expert Witness QualificationCertified Social WorkerMental Capacity AssessmentCompetency to ProceedForensic Mental HealthDiagnostic AssessmentPrognostic StatementsCriminal Procedure Law Article 730DSM IIINon-Medical Expert Testimony
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 1991

In re Lenny McN.

The Family Court in Bronx County issued an order on November 18, 1991, directing the disclosure of a social worker's entire casework file to an intervenor-respondent. This social worker was called as a witness by the law guardian for the infants. The appellate court unanimously reversed this order, finding the social worker's testimony regarding prior file use too equivocal to support a wholesale waiver of confidentiality and work product privileges. The court emphasized the protection against disclosure of mental impressions of a party's representative, classifying a social worker employed by a law guardian as such a representative. The case was remanded for a continuation of the dispositional hearing, with further discovery limited unless the law guardian seeks to elicit an adverse expert opinion from the social worker.

Family LawDisclosureConfidentiality PrivilegeWork Product ImmunitySocial Worker TestimonyChild CustodyFamily Court ProceedingDiscovery LimitationsAppellate ReviewWaiver of Privilege
References
2
Case No. CV-23-2455
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Abid A. Qureshi

Claimant Abid A. Qureshi appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found him in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The Board ruled that Qureshi knowingly made material misrepresentations to obtain workers' compensation benefits, specifically regarding his employment income from various businesses and his social activities, which contradicted his claims of being socially withdrawn. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the Board's credibility determinations and its conclusion that Qureshi's failure to disclose his business and travel activities constituted a material misrepresentation.

Workers' CompensationMisrepresentationFraudDisability BenefitsSocial Media EvidenceTax ReturnsCredibilityAppellate ReviewIndemnity BenefitsPsychological Injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 1967

Holloway v. Board of Examiners

The petitioner, a school social worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to compel the respondent to provide copies of medical and other reports that led to an unsatisfactory rating in an examination for a Supervisor of School Social Workers license. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially dismissed the petition. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, granting the petition to the extent of directing the respondent to furnish the reports to a physician designated by the petitioner, rather than directly to the petitioner. The case was remanded to the Special Term for further proceedings, including a determination on allowing the petitioner more time to appeal the unsatisfactory rating.

Article 78 CPLRLicense ExaminationSchool Social WorkerMedical ReportsDisclosureAdministrative AppealUnsatisfactory RatingAppellate ReversalRemandPhysician Disclosure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Williams v. Schenectady County Department of Social Services

Claimant, a social welfare client examiner, sought workers’ compensation benefits after injuring her lower back while tying her shoe during a work break. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied her claim, concluding that the injury stemmed from a personal act and did not arise out of or in the course of her employment. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence to support that the act of tying a shoe was not specific to her job demands. The court determined it was an act of personal volition, thus rendering the resulting injury non-compensable under workers' compensation law.

Workers' Compensation AppealCausally Related InjuryPersonal ActivityCourse of Employment DoctrineArising Out of Employment DoctrineBack Injury ClaimShoe Tying IncidentBoard Decision AffirmationAppellate Division ReviewSubstantial Evidence Standard
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurtis v. Wyman

The County of Westchester initiated an Article 78 proceeding to annul the Commissioner of Social Services' rejection of its alternative pay plan for social workers. This plan, submitted under the Social Welfare Law § 79-a, aimed to provide salary incentives for graduate-trained social workers. Intervenors, including social workers Morris Waldstreicher, Nancy Arfmann, and the CSEA, opposed the County's plan. The court upheld the Commissioner's decision, finding the proposed plan inadequate and not compliant with statutory objectives. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, rendering the retroactivity issue moot.

Article 78Social Welfare LawSocial Services LawPublic EmploymentSalary IncentivesCollateral EstoppelStatutory InterpretationAlternate Pay PlanMandamusWestchester County
References
2
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01584 [225 AD3d 1061]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2024

Matter of Talarico v. Niagara County Dept. of Social Servs.

Claimant Deborah Talarico, a caseworker, sustained injuries after slipping on ice during a home visit. Initially, the employer paid temporary total disability benefits, later changing to temporary partial disability. The employer's subpoena for the claimant's medical provider was quashed by Supreme Court, citing a lack of Workers' Compensation Board authorization. Subsequently, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, and both parties stipulated to the findings, including periods of less than total disability. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision and provided its interpretation of subpoena regulations. The employer's appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Division, Third Department, as the employer was deemed not aggrieved by the Board's decision, given the prior stipulations.

Workers' Compensation LawAggrievement DoctrineSubpoena AuthorityMedical Report EvidenceTemporary Disability BenefitsJudicial ReviewAppellate JurisdictionStipulation of FactsProcedural IssuesEmployer Appeals
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 23,497 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