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

Claim of Lewis v. Stewart's Marketing Corp.

A claimant sustained serious injuries in 1997 and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. In 2008, a dispute arose regarding the permanency and degree of disability, with conflicting medical reports submitted by the claimant (permanent total disability) and the employer (moderate partial disability). The Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the employer's request to cross-examine the claimant and his physician, subsequently ruling that the claimant had a permanent total disability. Upon appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, emphasizing that denying the employer's timely request for cross-examination was improper, especially given the conflicting medical evidence, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers’ CompensationDisability AssessmentPermanent Total DisabilityIndependent Medical ExaminationCross-Examination RightsProcedural Due ProcessConflicting Medical EvidenceRemittalAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Reversal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of La Manque v. Utica Concrete Products, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled that the claimant had a permanent total disability. Subsequently, the employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier appealed this decision, arguing that it was improperly denied its right to cross-examine adverse witnesses and produce its own witnesses during the proceedings. Specifically, the carrier's request for an adjournment to allow its consultant to testify was denied due to the lack of an excuse for the consultant's absence at the hearing. The appellate court found no prejudice in the refusal to allow cross-examination of the claimant's physician, as his report was not relied upon for the permanency issue. Furthermore, the court noted that no request was ever made to cross-examine the State's physician, ultimately affirming the Board's decision and amended decision.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Total DisabilityCross-ExaminationAdjournmentWitness TestimonyMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewInsurance CarrierDue ProcessEvidence Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Nosov

Defendants Vasiliy Ermichine and Alexander Nosov moved for a new trial following their convictions for racketeering, kidnapping, and murder-in-aid-of-racketeering charges. They argued that their Sixth Amendment rights were violated by improper limits on cross-examination of a cooperating witness, Alexander Spitchenko, regarding a pornographic scheme, and by the court's ex parte communications with jurors. The court denied the motion, ruling that the cross-examination was appropriately limited under Rules 608(b) and 403 F.R. Evid., as ample other evidence was available to assess the witness's credibility. The court also found that while the ex parte communications with jurors were not ideal, they constituted harmless error, as they focused on the deliberation process to resolve perceived intimidation rather than influencing the verdict's substance. The jury's continued deliberation for almost two days after the communications further supported the finding of no coercion or prejudice.

Criminal ProcedureMotion for New TrialCross-Examination LimitsWitness ImpeachmentRule 608(b) Federal Rules of EvidenceRule 403 Federal Rules of EvidenceEx Parte CommunicationsJuror MisconductJury DeliberationsHarmless Error Doctrine
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2004

Claim of Patterson v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield

The claimant sustained physical and psychological injuries on September 11, 2001, during the evacuation of her workplace at World Trade Center Tower One in Manhattan. In March 2003, the employer moved to discontinue benefits, arguing that claimant no longer had a work-related disability. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) ordered depositions of medical experts. Claimant’s attorney failed to appear for the deposition of the employer’s orthopedic expert. Consequently, the WCLJ ruled that the claimant waived her right to cross-examine the expert and found no further work-related disability after May 12, 2003. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, which the claimant subsequently appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s determination, citing substantial evidence supporting the finding of no further disability and concluding that the WCLJ did not abuse its discretion in denying an adjournment for cross-examination.

Workers' CompensationDisabilityMedical Expert TestimonyWaiver of Cross-ExaminationAdjournmentAppellate ReviewSeptember 11World Trade CenterNew York StateWorkers' Compensation Board
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Nickens v. Randstad

Claimant, employed by a temporary agency, suffered severe lumbar and sacral vertebrae fractures on October 7, 2003, when caught in a garbage truck's hydraulic lift. The employer and carrier argued he was gathering cans for personal use, a prohibited act. However, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the injury work-related, established an average weekly wage, and awarded temporary disability benefits. The carrier sought review from the Workers’ Compensation Board, contending they were denied cross-examination of claimant’s physicians, an opportunity to present a witness regarding the prohibited act, and cross-examination of claimant about his labor market attachment. The Board affirmed the WCLJ’s decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no reversible error.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryHydraulic Lift AccidentVertebrae FracturesTemporary EmploymentProhibited Act DefenseCross-Examination DenialLabor Market AttachmentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. 527180
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2019

Matter of McAndrews v. Buffalo Sewer Auth.

Claimant Donald McAndrews filed for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining bilateral knee and ankle injuries from a fall at work. The employer and carrier's notice of controversy was untimely, precluding most defenses except causal relationship. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the case for work-related injuries, crediting claimant's testimony and medical evidence, and denying the carrier's fraud claim under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a due to insufficient evidence. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. On appeal, the carrier contended that discrepancies between an accident report and the claim form undermined the causal relationship finding and that their cross-examination of claimant was improperly curtailed regarding fraud. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, upholding its assessment of witness credibility and the sufficiency of the medical evidence, and finding no abuse of discretion in the WCLJ's limitations on cross-examination.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipUntimely NoticeFraud AllegationCredibilityMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewCross-ExaminationBilateral Knee InjuryBilateral Ankle Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1983

American White Cross Laboratories, Inc. v. North River Insurance

Vincent Yeager, an employee of American White Cross Laboratories, Inc. (American), was injured during employment, leading to a lawsuit against a machine manufacturer, who then brought a third-party action against American for indemnification. American was covered by both a workers’ compensation policy from the State Insurance Fund and a general liability policy from North River Insurance Co. North River disclaimed liability, citing exclusions for workers’ compensation obligations and bodily injury to employees. American then initiated a fourth-party action against North River for contribution. The Supreme Court initially denied American's summary judgment motion and granted North River's cross-motion to dismiss, with leave to replead for indemnification. This court reversed, holding that North River's exclusions do not insulate it from American’s claims because the employer's liability to a third-party tort-feasor for an employee's injury arises from equitable apportionment, not directly from workers' compensation law, thus granting American's motion for summary judgment and denying North River's cross-motion.

Insurance coverage disputeGeneral liability policyWorkers' compensation exclusionContribution between tort-feasorsIndemnificationSummary judgmentFourth-party actionDole-Dow doctrineEquitable apportionmentEmployer liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2007

Drake v. Woods

Paris Drake petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his New York state conviction for Assault in the First Degree and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree. Drake argued that the trial court violated his due process right to a fair trial and his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation by refusing to recall a witness (Carl Fortner) and by not inspecting a witness's (Witness A) psychiatric records or allowing cross-examination on her mental health. The court first addressed procedural default, finding that state appellate courts did not clearly rely on procedural bars. On the merits, the court denied both grounds for relief, concluding that the trial court's evidentiary rulings were not erroneous and did not deprive Drake of a fundamentally fair trial or his confrontation rights, as the jury had sufficient information to assess witness credibility.

Habeas CorpusSixth AmendmentDue ProcessConfrontation ClauseEyewitness IdentificationPsychiatric RecordsCross-ExaminationProcedural DefaultEvidentiary RulingsAssault First Degree
References
105
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00844 [224 AD3d 1079]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Cross v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision

Brenda Cross, the claimant, established a workers' compensation claim for knee and ankle injuries from a 2020 work accident. The employer's carrier required her to use contracted providers for diagnostic testing. After an approved MRI for her right ankle was performed by a non-contracted provider, the carrier objected to payment. The WCLJ and Workers' Compensation Board sided with the carrier but found claimant not responsible for the bill. Cross appealed, but the Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed the appeal, ruling that Cross lacked standing as she was not aggrieved, since she was not responsible for the medical bill and any dispute over reimbursement rates was between the provider and the carrier.

Workers' Compensation ClaimMedical Bill DisputeDiagnostic TestingContracted ProvidersStanding (Law)Aggrieved PartyAppeal DismissedWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate DivisionMedical Reimbursement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schairer v. Schairer

The wife filed a motion to disqualify the law firm of Sari Friedman, P.C. from representing her husband in their ongoing divorce proceedings, citing a conflict of interest. This conflict stemmed from Ms. Friedman's prior representation of the court-appointed custody forensic expert in his own divorce case in 1995. The husband cross-moved to disqualify the same forensic expert, alleging potential bias against police officers and Ms. Friedman's previous representation of the expert. The court found a clear appearance of a conflict of interest, as Ms. Friedman could not effectively cross-examine her former client, the expert, without potentially using privileged confidential information. Consequently, the court granted the wife's motion to disqualify Sari Friedman, P.C. and denied the husband's cross-motion, determining that any claims of bias against the expert could be addressed during trial.

DivorceAttorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestForensic ExpertCustodySpousal DisputeProfessional EthicsConfidentialityLegal RepresentationJudicial Opinion
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 4,780 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