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

50 Lefferts LLC v. Cole

This case involves a holdover proceeding initiated by a petitioner landlord against Shaniquca Cole, who claims succession rights to a rent-stabilized apartment after the death of the tenant of record, Thelma Williams, on June 10, 2013. Cole asserts she was a member of Williams' immediate family and that the apartment was their primary residence for two years prior to Williams' death. The core issue is the admissibility of Williams' hospital records, offered by the petitioner, which contain statements from which adverse inferences about Cole's residency could be drawn. Respondent objected to these records as hearsay, but the court, referencing relevant case law, ruled that discharge planning statements within hospital records are admissible as part of a patient's treatment. The court denied the respondent's motion to bar the evidence, emphasizing that admissibility does not equate to probative weight.

Holdover proceedingSuccession rightsRent stabilizationHospital recordsHearsay exceptionBusiness recordsDischarge planMedical evidencePrimary residenceTenant rights
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2010

John Giugliano, DC, P.C. v. Merchants Mutual Insurance

Plaintiff John Giugliano, DC, EC., as assignee of Laura Hebenstreit, initiated this action to recover first party no-fault benefits from defendant Merchants Mutual Ins. Co. The core dispute, following a trial on June 30, 2010, centered on the plaintiff's billing practices under the New York Workers' Compensation Medical Fee Schedule, specifically regarding the use of surgical CPT codes for chiropractic procedures. Defendant argued against the use of surgical codes and duplicate billing for a specific CPT code, while plaintiff maintained these practices were justified because the procedures were not listed under the chiropractic fee schedule and involved distinct treatment areas. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the procedures were properly billed according to the Fee Schedule, thereby entitling the plaintiff to reimbursement.

No-Fault BenefitsChiropractic BillingWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleCPT CodesSurgical ProceduresCo-Surgeon BillingInsurance ReimbursementMedical Fee Schedule DisputesSpinal ManipulationMandibular Fracture
References
2
Case No. ADJ8064041, ADJ8064019
Regular
Aug 22, 2014

TRACY MORGAN, TRACY MORGAN ALONZO vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) considered Tracy Morgan's Petition for Reconsideration in her case against the County of Fresno. The WCAB reviewed the petition and the report from the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Adopting and incorporating the WCJ's report, the WCAB denied reconsideration of the prior decision. The order denying the petition was issued on August 22, 2014.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportTracy MorganCounty of FresnoAmerican All-Risk Loss AdministratorsADJ8064041ADJ8064019Fresno District Office
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 1998

Cole v. Rappazzo Electric Co.

Plaintiff Cole, a field technician, was allegedly injured by inhaling fumes at a New York Telephone Company (NYTel) renovation site during a renovation project. The fumes originated from the work of a subcontractor, B.U.D. Sheet Metal, Inc., hired by prime contractor Rappazzo Electric Company, Inc. Cole filed suit against NYTel and Rappazzo, alleging common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 violations. The Supreme Court partially denied motions for summary judgment by NYTel and Rappazzo. On cross appeals, the appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that triable issues of fact existed regarding NYTel's and Rappazzo's supervisory control over the worksite, thereby precluding summary judgment on the negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims.

Common-law negligenceLabor Law § 200Summary judgmentWorksite safetySubcontractor liabilityOwner liabilityContractor liabilityFumes inhalationPersonal injuryWorkers' Compensation Law exclusivity
References
11
Case No. 11 Civ. 8967; 12 Civ. 1364
Regular Panel Decision

Geron ex rel. Thelen LLP v. Robinson & Cole LLP

This case involves a Chapter 7 trustee, Yann Geron, for the dissolved law firm Thelen LLP, who brought fraudulent transfer claims against Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Robinson & Cole LLP. The trustee sought to recover profits from former Thelen partners, arguing that pending hourly fee matters are assets of the dissolved firm. The court ruled that under New York law, pending hourly fee matters are not partnership assets, granting Seyfarth Shaw's motion. However, under California law, such matters could be considered assets if profits exceed 'reasonable compensation,' leading to the denial of Robinson & Cole's motion. The court also certified the order for interlocutory appeal, citing controlling legal questions and substantial grounds for differing opinions on the unfinished business doctrine.

Law Firm BankruptcyUnfinished Business DoctrinePartnership AssetsFraudulent Transfer ClaimsHourly Fee MattersContingency Fee MattersChoice of Law DisputeNew York LawCalifornia LawInterlocutory Appeal
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Madden v. Creative Services, Inc.

Plaintiffs George Madden and Roseanne Cohen filed a diversity action against Ralph Douglas Howe, Jr., Michael Sean Cole, National Amusements, Inc., Creative Services, Inc., Sklar, and Redstone. The suit arose from a break-in into the plaintiffs' attorney's office by Howe and Cole, employees of Creative Services, which was hired by National Amusements to investigate opposition to a proposed theater complex. Plaintiffs alleged various torts including intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion, interference with attorney-client privilege, unlawful search and seizure, and negligent infliction of emotional harm. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint, finding that the alleged conduct did not meet the legal thresholds for the claimed torts under New York law and declined to create new causes of action. Consequently, all principal and derivative claims were dismissed.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressConversionAttorney-Client PrivilegeUnlawful Search and SeizureNegligent Infliction of Emotional HarmLoss of ConsortiumMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentFederal Rules of Civil ProcedurePleading Standards
References
26
Case No. 98 Civ. 4547(DC)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 1998

Campbell v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Inc.

Mary Terese Campbell petitioned the Court to vacate an arbitration award by a National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) panel, alleging wrongful discharge and defamation by her former employer, Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Inc. District Judge Chin denied Campbell's petition, finding no manifest disregard of the law, evident partiality, or misconduct by the arbitrators, and upheld the arbitration award. The court also denied Campbell's arguments regarding due process and forum fees. A related lawsuit, Campbell v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Inc. et al., No. 98 Civ. 4547(DC), was dismissed with prejudice due to res judicata. A subsequent Rule 59 motion by Campbell challenging the judgment was also denied.

ArbitrationAward VacaturEmployment DisputeDefamationWrongful TerminationManifest Disregard of LawDue ProcessForum FeesRes JudicataFederal Court Review
References
17
Case No. CAF 12-00796
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2013

COLE, HEATHER A. v. NOFRI, MICHAEL JAMES

This case concerns an appeal to the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, regarding a Family Court order dismissing a mother's petition for custody modification. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, finding a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a custody modification. The court noted the parents' remarriages, additional children, and the subject child's strong desire to live with the mother due to anxiety in the father's home. Consequently, the Appellate Division granted primary physical custody to the mother and awarded visitation to the father, remitting the matter to Family Court for establishing a visitation schedule. A dissenting justice argued against overturning the original custody arrangement, emphasizing the child's young age, the father's long-standing primary custody, and the lack of expert testimony regarding the child's expressed anxieties.

custody modificationchild's best interestsappellate reviewfamily courtphysical custodyvisitation rightschange in circumstanceschild's preferenceparental remarriagechild anxiety
References
13
Case No. CA 15-01752
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2016

FAWCETT, JASON v. STEARNS, FRANKLYN COLE

Plaintiffs Jason and Cynthia Fawcett appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, which granted summary judgment to defendant Franklyn Cole Stearns, dismissing their Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims. The plaintiffs sought damages for injuries sustained by Jason Fawcett when he fell from a roof while renovating defendant's cottage. The core issue was the applicability of the homeowner exemption from liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, found that the defendant met the burden of establishing the exemption, as the renovation work served both residential and commercial purposes, thereby shielding him from strict liability. The court affirmed the lower court's order.

Homeowner ExemptionLabor LawPremises LiabilityStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentRenovation WorkSecond Home
References
12
Case No. ADJ6413644
Regular
Apr 24, 2009

JANICE HOWELL vs. NATIONAL MENTOR HOLDINGS, dba COLE VOCATIONAL SERVICES, administered by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. The petition also sought removal, which was denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The underlying issues, such as an order compelling medical record production, are interlocutory procedural matters not subject to reconsideration. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and recommendation, denying both reconsideration and removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightRemovalWCJ Report and RecommendationStipulationsOrder Compelling Production of RecordsDiscovery ProcessPrivacy
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 116 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