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

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. 05-19-00728-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Katherine Mitchell v. Dallas Housing Authority

This document is a 'Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond' filed by an individual named Kyle Fitz. In this statement, Mr. Fitz declares his financial situation to the court, providing details on his monthly income, property value, and monthly expenses. He also addresses whether he is represented by legal aid and if he receives public benefits, stating he does not receive needs-based public benefits and is not represented by legal aid. The purpose of this statement is to demonstrate his indigence and inability to cover court-related costs.

Financial HardshipCourt CostsAppeal BondIndigencyLegal Aid EligibilityIncome StatementExpense ReportAsset DeclarationDebt DisclosurePublic Benefits
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Brian R.

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) moved to admit out-of-court statements from the non-respondent mother at a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding against Mr. V. ACS alleged Mr. V. physically abused the mother in the presence of their child, and the mother is now unwilling to testify due to threats from Mr. V. and his family. Citing the Sirois doctrine, ACS requested the admission of these hearsay statements, arguing the respondent's misconduct caused the witness's unavailability. The court found that ACS met the threshold for a Sirois hearing, ordering one to determine the mother's unavailability, whether it was procured by Mr. V.'s misconduct, and if any statements qualify as "excited utterances." The court also ruled that the applicable standard of proof for these exceptions in Article 10 proceedings is a fair preponderance of the evidence.

Child Protective ProceedingSirois HearingHearsay ExceptionWitness UnavailabilityDefendant MisconductDomestic ViolenceFamily Court ActEvidentiary HearingBurden of ProofPreponderance of Evidence
References
21
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kowalski v. Fisher 40th & 3rd Co.

The case involves an appeal by UNESCO, Inc., a third-party defendant, against an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The lower court granted the plaintiff's motion to estop UNESCO from denying a stipulation to add its Workers' Compensation Law lien to a jury's damage award, and entered judgment against UNESCO. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order but reversed the judgment, vacated the order, and denied the plaintiff's motion. The appellate court found no evidence of a written or open-court stipulation and no reliance by the plaintiff on the alleged stipulation, thus concluding that the Supreme Court erred in applying estoppel. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationStipulationEstoppelAppealJudgment ReversalCPLRAppellate ProcedureThird-Party ActionLien
References
6
Case No. ADJ7412016
Regular
May 10, 2011

DORIS CORTES vs. BANK OF THE WEST, ESIS

This case involves an applicant who sustained bilateral wrist and elbow injuries but experienced no lost time from work. The applicant stipulated to zero permanent disability, though the WCJ ordered an Almaraz/Guzman assessment, which the defendant sought to rescind. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and will approve the stipulations unless the applicant objects within twenty days. The Board found the stipulations adequate based on the record and the applicant's continued employment.

WCABPetition for RemovalAlmaraz/Guzman assessmentStipulations with Request for Awardpermanent disability ratingobjective findings of impairmentqualified medical evaluator (QME)American Medical Association Guidesmandatory settlement conference (MSC)rescinded order
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2004

Claim of Mickens v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant suffered a work-related injury in 1993 and subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. A stipulation agreement between the claimant and employer, which adjusted weekly awards and set future payments, was approved by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. The claimant appealed this decision to the Workers’ Compensation Board, asserting the stipulation's invalidity, inadequate legal representation, and excessive counsel fees. The Board upheld the WCLJ's decision and denied the claimant's request for reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding the stipulation binding and the counsel fee award within the Board's discretion, and no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration.

Stipulation AgreementCounsel FeesBoard ReviewAppellate ReviewPsychological ImpairmentsWork-related InjuryDecision AffirmedDiscretionary PowersLegal RepresentationBenefit Adjustment
References
6
Case No. ADJ10067186
Regular
Jun 06, 2019

MICHAEL BEDIG vs. CANTRELL'S COMPUTER SALES AND SERVICE, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY

This case concerns Michael Bedig's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined Bedig sustained injury to his neck and left upper extremity, resulting in 20% permanent disability and a specific weekly indemnity rate. Bedig sought to overturn this, arguing the ALJ erred by relying on stipulated earnings from a pre-trial conference statement, which he claimed were entered into by mistake and that his actual earning capacity should have been used. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding that Bedig had repeatedly stipulated to his earnings and indemnity rate, failed to object to these stipulations at trial or subsequently, and did not demonstrate sufficient grounds to set aside a unilateral mistake.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityStipulationsPre-trial Conference StatementEarnings CapacityAverage Weekly WageIndemnity Rate
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 1998

Stoll v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

This case concerns an appeal regarding a stipulation of settlement in a personal injury claim, involving a workers' compensation lien. The plaintiff initially refused to sign the release, asserting that his continuing workers' compensation benefits should remain unaffected, contrary to his attorney's counsel. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion to enforce the settlement and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to vacate it. The Appellate Division reversed this order, finding that the plaintiff's attorney, despite a factual dispute over actual authority, possessed apparent authority to enter into the settlement. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motion to enforce the stipulation and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LienStipulation of SettlementAttorney AuthorityApparent AuthorityMediationVacate StipulationAppellate ReviewNew York LawContract Enforcement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1998

Bouloy v. Peters

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the petitioners' application to vacate a stipulation of discontinuance. The application was found untimely, having been filed more than two years after the petitioners became aware of the grounds for vacatur, despite the stipulation being signed much earlier in June 1993. Additionally, the court noted that any action by petitioner Hardie Bouloy against respondent Peters would be barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, as the injury occurred during employment by a co-worker operating a vehicle owned by Peters. The order was unanimously affirmed.

Stipulation of DiscontinuanceVacatur ApplicationTimelinessWorkers' Compensation LawCo-worker InjuryEmployment InjuryVehicle AccidentAppellate ReviewSupreme Court DecisionAffirmed Judgment
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,590 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