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. ADJ3755565
Regular
Apr 27, 2010

JEAN CARDINALE vs. FIRST BLACKHAWK FINANCIAL CORPORATION, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the original award to the applicant for industrial injuries to multiple body parts. The defendant's primary argument for reconsideration was the alleged improper admission of a psychological report, claiming it was not listed on the pre-trial conference statement. However, the Board found this contention to be factually incorrect, as the report was indeed listed and acknowledged by both parties. Consequently, the Board initiated removal on its own motion to issue sanctions against the defendant's law firm for filing a verified petition containing demonstrably false statements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryCumulative InjuryPsyche InjuryCervical Spine InjuryMedical Report AdmissibilityPre-Trial Conference StatementPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code Section 5813
References
0
Case No. Index No. 524963/19
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2025

Pillco v. 160 Dikeman St., LLC

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order denying plaintiff Fabian Pillco's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) in a personal injury action. The core issue was the admissibility of the plaintiff's medical record statement describing the accident, which differed from his deposition testimony. The court held that the statement, recorded by Dr. Daniel Khaimov at Precision Pain, was germane to diagnosis and treatment, thus admissible under the business records exception. This created a triable issue of fact regarding the accident's occurrence, despite the plaintiff being the sole witness. The decision provides guidance on the admissibility of patient statements within medical records when relevant to medical care.

Hearsay RuleBusiness Records ExceptionMedical Records AdmissibilityLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentCredibilityPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFalling Object
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Brandle Meadows, LLC

Petitioner, a construction manager, sought to compel respondent to provide a verified statement regarding trust funds for a construction project under Lien Law article 3-A, claiming the initial statement was deficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing referral of the main contractual dispute to arbitration. On appeal, the court ruled that the arbitration did not negate the respondent's obligation to provide a compliant verified statement. The court found respondent's provided statement insufficient across multiple categories required by Lien Law § 75 (3). Consequently, the appeal court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, granted the petition, and directed the respondent to furnish a compliant verified statement.

Lien LawVerified StatementConstruction ManagerTrust FundsArbitrationAppellate ReviewStatutory TrustReal Property ImprovementTrust BeneficiaryCompliance Deficiency
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2004

Claim of Lopresti v. Washington Mills

A claimant appealed an amended decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, which disqualified him from wage replacement benefits for violating Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The claimant initially misrepresented how he sustained a knee injury, claiming he slipped on ice, but later admitted it was due to an altercation with a coworker. While a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found the injury compensable and no violation, the Board modified this, concluding the claimant knowingly made a false statement material to his claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the claimant's motivation to protect a coworker was a credibility issue for the Board to resolve. The court upheld the discretionary penalty of disqualification from wage replacement benefits, finding the Board's determination supported by substantial evidence.

False StatementFraudulent MisrepresentationWage Replacement DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate AffirmationClaimant CredibilityMateriality of FalsehoodKnee Injury ClaimWorkplace AltercationStatutory Violation § 114-a
References
7
Case No. ADJ3875612 (LAO 0875949), ADJ4655048 (LAO 0875947), ADJ3780834 (LAO 0875984)
Regular
Aug 26, 2019

HUGO HERNANDEZ vs. FOX HILLS TOWING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a WCJ's statement that MedNet's lien claim was not dismissed. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition, finding that the WCJ's statement concerned an interlocutory procedural issue, not a final order. Reconsideration is only permissible from final orders that determine substantive rights or liabilities. No formal order of dismissal was ever issued for MedNet's lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJLien ClaimMedNetNotice of Intent to Issue SanctionsFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionDismissalRemoval
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Raggie

Severius Raggie, a debtor, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in January 2006, which was subsequently dismissed in February 2006 due to his failure to comply with credit counseling requirements and other obligations. In January 2008, Raggie moved to amend his Schedule B and Statement of Financial Affairs to include a personal injury claim against CVP # 1, LLC et al. This motion was prompted by the defendants' attempt in state court to dismiss the personal injury action because it was not listed in Raggie's bankruptcy petition. The court addressed the core issue of whether a dismissed bankruptcy case, as opposed to a closed one, precludes a debtor's right to amend schedules under Bankruptcy Rule 1009(a). The court concluded that 'closed' under § 350 and Rule 1009 does not encompass 'dismissed,' thereby maintaining Raggie's right to amend. Finding no evidence of bad faith, fraud, or prejudice to creditors, the court granted Raggie's motion to amend his schedules, rendering the motion to vacate the dismissal order moot.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13Schedule B AmendmentDismissed CaseClosed Case DistinctionPersonal Injury ClaimDebtor's RightsFederal Rules of Bankruptcy ProcedureBad FaithCreditor Prejudice
References
17
Case No. ADJ8721136
Regular
Dec 07, 2015

LILITH TEITELBAUM vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By Sedgwick CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that no order precluded the defendant from deposing the qualified medical evaluator. The Board also initiated removal on its own motion to issue a notice of intention to assess sanctions against the applicant's attorney and his firm. This action stems from the attorney's verified petition containing misrepresentations of fact and intemperate language, violating WCAB rules on sanctions for frivolous or delaying tactics. Ultimately, the Board found the applicant's attorney's conduct warranted sanctions due to false statements and unprofessional conduct in pursuing reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)SanctionsLabor Code § 5813Bad Faith ActionsFrivolous TacticsMisrepresentation of FactsIntemperate LanguageWCAB Rule 10561(b)
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2001

Mulhern v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The case involves Kevin Mulhern, a former employee of Eastman Kodak Company, who sued Kodak for discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and New York State Human Rights Law (NYHRL) due to his Nail-Patella Syndrome. Mulhern alleged that Kodak failed to reasonably accommodate his disability by not allowing him to work exclusively in the less physically demanding PRS area, despite his ability to perform those tasks. Kodak argued that rotation to more strenuous 3R tasks was an essential job function and that Mulhern's disability application statements contradicted his ability to work. The court denied Kodak's motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact regarding the essential functions of Mulhern's job, the reasonableness of the requested accommodation, and the interpretation of his disability application statements. The court also found triable issues of fact regarding the FMLA claim.

ADAFMLANYHRLDisability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationEssential Job FunctionsSummary JudgmentWork RestrictionsMedical LeaveJudicial Estoppel
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Fur Liners Contractors Ass'n v. Lucchi

The court considered whether Civil Practice Act section 882-a typically permits framing issues for a contempt proceeding. It was determined that under ordinary circumstances, it does not. However, the appellants, having themselves objected to proceeding without framed issues, were precluded from raising an objection on that ground. The court found the framed issues sufficient to address the questions presented in the case. Consequently, the order under appeal was unanimously affirmed, with associated costs and disbursements.

contempt of courtframing issuesappellate procedurecivil practice actunanimous affirmationprocedural objectionappellate costsjudicial review
References
0
Case No. 2005 NY Slip Op 25220
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2005

Matter of Jacqueline B. v. Peter K.

This Family Court case addresses the admissibility of a child's out-of-court statements in a custody modification proceeding. Petitioner Jacqueline B. sought to modify an existing joint custody order with respondent Peter K. The central question was whether the child's hearsay statements, relating to issues like communication problems and incompatible parenting styles—but not allegations of abuse or neglect—could be admitted into evidence. Presiding Justice Paula J. Hepner reviewed established case law, including _Ponzini v Ponzini_, and concluded that without specific allegations of abuse or neglect, hearsay statements from a child are inadmissible in custody proceedings under Article 6 of the Family Court Act. The court distinguished this scenario from child protective proceedings where such exceptions might apply and ruled that the child's statements were not admissible.

Custody ModificationHearsay AdmissibilityChild Witness StatementsFamily Court ProceedingsEvidentiary RulesParental RightsAbuse and Neglect AllegationsDue ProcessJoint CustodyLaw Guardian Role
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 9,558 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