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
Mar 18, 2002

Romano v. Curry Auto Group, Inc.

John Romano and other plaintiffs appealed a Supreme Court order that granted summary judgment to defendants Curry Realty, LLC and Curry Auto Group, Inc. Romano had sustained personal injuries covered by workers' compensation from his employer Mohansic Corp.'s insurer. Plaintiffs alleged that Curry Realty and Curry Auto were alter egos of Mohansic Corp. and sought to pierce the corporate veil. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, citing the defendants' roles as an 'out-of-possession' landlord and a provider of dealer management services. The Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the plaintiffs' own alter ego claim mandated that workers' compensation was their exclusive remedy, thereby barring the personal injury action.

Personal injuryWorkers' compensation exclusivityAlter ego doctrineCorporate veil piercingSummary judgmentAppellate procedureExclusive remedy
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romano v. Stanley

Marie Romano sued Harold Stanley's estate and three establishments (Jack’s Oyster House, Martel’s of Broadway, and Dee Dee’s Tavern) under the Dram Shop Act after being injured in an automobile accident caused by Nancy Stanley, who was allegedly intoxicated. Jack’s Oyster House and Martel’s of Broadway moved for summary judgment, arguing Stanley was not "visibly intoxicated" when served alcohol on their premises. Plaintiff submitted an expert’s affidavit based on Stanley’s high blood and urine alcohol levels, asserting she must have been visibly intoxicated at the time. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that an expert's affidavit relying solely on blood alcohol content to infer visible intoxication, without a stated scientific basis or personal professional experience in judging live intoxication manifestations, is speculative and conclusory and lacks sufficient probative force to defeat summary judgment.

Dram Shop ActVisible IntoxicationBlood Alcohol ContentExpert TestimonySummary JudgmentForensic PathologistCircumstantial EvidenceAlcoholic Beverage Control LawSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Romano

Respondent, Benedict F. Romano, an attorney admitted to practice in New York, maintained an office within the First Judicial Department. The Departmental Disciplinary Committee (DDC) moved for his immediate suspension based on substantial admissions of professional misconduct. Ms. A., a client, reported that respondent conducted an intimate physical examination during an initial consultation for a workers' compensation case. Respondent admitted to the examination but denied impropriety, claiming it was essential for case assessment. A Hearing Panel sustained the charge and recommended a two-year suspension. Subsequently, another client, Ms. D., accused respondent of similar misconduct, taking photographs while improperly touching her. The DDC's motion for immediate suspension was granted by the Court, finding that respondent's actions, and his inability to comprehend their impropriety, posed an immediate threat to the public interest, constituting professional misconduct under 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (ii) and (iii).

Attorney DisciplinaryProfessional MisconductSexual MisconductSuspension of AttorneyDR 1-102 (A) (8)22 NYCRR 603.4Fitness to Practice LawUncontested EvidenceSubstantial Admission Under OathDisciplinary Committee
References
0
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 04819 [129 AD3d 790]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2015

Lindsay v. Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano LLP

Rudie Lindsay (plaintiff) sued the law firm Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano LLP (defendant) for legal malpractice. Lindsay alleged that the firm failed to commence a personal injury action on his behalf after a motor vehicle accident in 2006, leading to the expiration of the statute of limitations. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it was time-barred, failed to state a cause of action, and was contradicted by documentary evidence, specifically claiming they had informed Lindsay they would not pursue the personal injury claim. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the defendant's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order. The Court found the action was not time-barred because the legal malpractice claim accrued when the personal injury statute of limitations expired in November 2009, and Lindsay commenced his action in November 2012, within the three-year limit. The Court also ruled that the defendant's submitted evidence (a letter and a blank certified mail receipt) did not constitute conclusive documentary evidence to dismiss the complaint, and a dispute existed regarding the attorney-client relationship for the personal injury claim.

Legal malpracticeStatute of limitations defenseMotion to dismiss complaintDocumentary evidenceAttorney-client relationshipCPLR 3211(a) motionsPresumption of mailingAppellate Division reviewPersonal injury litigationAccrual of cause of action
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Susko v. Romano's MacAroni Grill

Plaintiff Karen M. Susko sued her former employer, Romano's Macaroni Grill, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII. Susko reported multiple incidents of alleged sexual harassment by a co-worker, Daniel Fabrizio, including touching, attempted kissing, patting, and threats of physical violence, which occurred between October 1996 and March 1997. Although Romano's responded by warning and eventually terminating Fabrizio, Susko claims the company failed to take adequate action to prevent further harassment. Romano's moved for partial summary judgment on the sexual harassment claim, arguing that the incidents did not constitute a hostile work environment and that their response was reasonable. The court denied the motion, finding sufficient factual support for a hostile work environment claim and a remaining factual issue regarding the reasonableness of Romano's employer response.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityCo-worker HarassmentRetaliation ClaimFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56DiscriminationWorkplace Harassment Policy
References
17
Case No. ADJ1372133 (VNO 0488219)
Regular
Jul 19, 2011

CHARLES ROMANO vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case involves applicant Charles Romano's reconsideration of a Supplemental Findings and Award regarding medical treatment penalties against Ralphs Grocery Company. The applicant sought penalties for delays in providing a wheelchair and reimbursing out-of-pocket expenses, including a van. However, the WCJ rescinded the Supplemental Award and scheduled further proceedings, rendering the petitions for reconsideration moot. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both the applicant's and defendant's petitions for reconsideration.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Findings and AwardMedical Treatment PenaltiesL.C. §§ 58145814.5wheelchairout-of-pocket medical expenseswheelchair accessible vanOrder Rescinding Supplemental Findings and AwardPetition for Reconsideration
References
1
Case No. VNO 0450531
Regular
Jun 12, 2008

NELSON PIMENTEL (Deceased) CLAUDIA CISNEROS, Guardian Ad Litem for SUMMER PIMENTEL vs. DAYNITE FACILITIES; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to address an attorney's fee dispute and a request for disqualification of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The WCAB increased the attorney's fee awarded to Ronald Ehrman to $4,800.00, finding that he had cured prior notification defects regarding his adverse interest in seeking additional fees. Additionally, the WCAB disqualified the original WCJ, finding that his criticisms of Ehrman's conduct created an appearance of bias, and reassigned the case to a new WCJ.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeath BenefitsAttorney's FeesGuardian Ad LitemReconsiderationDisqualificationWCJAdverse InterestEthics ViolationsPenalties
References
3
Case No. ADJ3107843 (MON 0208626)
Regular
Oct 05, 2009

CHRIS DERBOGHOSSIAN vs. ALL TUNE & LUBE, ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, CRAWFORD & COMPANY

The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision except for the attorney's fees award for the applicant's wife deposition; the contempt order was rescinded as the WCJ lacked authority to address indirect contempt.

WCABremovalreconsiderationdisqualificationcontemptindirect contemptLabor Code section 5814transportation expenseattorney feesmedical treatment
References
11
Case No. ADJ7184070
Regular
Aug 17, 2016

ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ vs. PACIFIC EXTERIORS, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's Petition for Removal and Disqualification of the WCJ. The lien claimant sought to challenge an order rescinding an earlier lien allowance and a notice of intent to sanction them for allegedly obtaining a settlement without proper authority. The Board found that the lien claimant had adequate recourse through a petition for reconsideration regarding sanctions and that the disqualification allegations were not supported by the record. The WCJ acted appropriately by rescinding the order when concerns were raised, and no bias was demonstrated.

Petition for RemovalWCJLien ClaimantSanctionsDisqualificationCompromise and ReleaseLabor CodeAdministrative Law JudgeOrder Re: LienPetition for Reconsideration
References
1
Case No. ADJ12674446
Regular
Jul 25, 2025

MICHAEL KREZA, SHANNA KREZA vs. CITY OF COSTA MESA FIRE DEPARTMENT, ADMINSURE

Applicant Shanna Kreza, guardian ad Litem for deceased Michael Kreza, sought reconsideration or, alternatively, removal and disqualification of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) after the WCJ issued an Order Suspending Action. The WCJ's order questioned the requested attorney's fees as excessive, which the applicant argued created an appearance of bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, deeming the WCJ's order interlocutory. However, the Board granted the petitions for removal and disqualification, finding an appearance of bias by the WCJ due to unqualified opinions on attorney's fees. Consequently, the WCJ was disqualified, their May 12, 2025 Order was rescinded, and the case was returned for reassignment to a new WCJ.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFirefighterDeath ClaimAttorney FeesExcessive FeesPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCJ BiasOrder Suspending Action
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 6,027 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