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
Aug 26, 1987

People v. Miller

This appeal concerns a judgment of conviction from Rochester City Court, entered August 26, 1987, convicting defendant-appellant Miller of a probation violation and sentencing him to one year in Monroe County Jail. Miller raised two issues: the failure to provide a written copy of probation orders at sentencing and sentencing without an updated presentence investigative report. The court found that while CPL 410.10 (1) mandates written probation orders at sentencing, the delayed provision by a probation officer before conditions took effect did not prejudice Miller's substantial rights, thus not warranting reversal. However, the court concluded that the failure to obtain an updated presentence investigative report before resentencing, nine months after the original report, constituted reversible error under CPL 390.20 (2) (b) based on established legal precedents. Consequently, the conviction was reversed, and the matter remitted to Rochester City Court for an updated presentence investigation report and resentencing.

Probation violationSentencing procedureCriminal Procedure LawWritten probation ordersPresentence investigation reportRight of allocutionAppellate reviewConviction reversalRemand for resentencingMisdemeanor sentencing
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 1965

Rivera v. Hellman

This case involves a motion to confirm a Special Referee's report concerning the amounts and priorities of various liens. The Special Referee conducted a hearing and reported on claims from an attorney for the plaintiff ($793.50), Roosevelt Hospital ($846.53), and the Millinery Health Fund ($641.00, later adjusted to $528). The report established the amounts of each lien and recommended priorities, placing the attorney's lien first, followed by the hospital lien (except for a $12 outpatient service), and then the compensation lien. The court concurred with the Special Referee's report and recommendations, granting the motion to confirm.

Lien PriorityAttorney's LienHospital LienDisability BenefitsWorkmen's Compensation LawSpecial Referee ReportMotion GrantedNew York Supreme CourtLien LawMotion Practice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colindres v. Carpenito

Plaintiff Rochelle Colindres sought a protective order to deny defendants' demand for a medical report from her former treating psychologist, Diane Henry, or alternatively, relief from compliance with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts § 202.17(b)(1). Colindres argued that the defendants waived their right to the report as the independent medical examination (IME) already occurred, and that obtaining the report would be an undue hardship since Henry ceased treatment due to Colindres' attendance issues. Defendants Mario Carpenito, Jr., City of White Plains, and White Plains Parking Department opposed, asserting that the report was necessary to clarify alleged injuries, prepare for cross-examination, and facilitate settlement, highlighting Colindres' complex medical history predating the incident. The court denied both branches of Colindres' motion, finding that the rule applies broadly to personal injury actions, defendants did not waive their entitlement, and Colindres failed to prove it was impossible to obtain the report. The court ordered Colindres to exchange a compliant medical report from Diane Henry by March 27, 2017.

protective ordermedical report disclosurediscovery disputepsychological treatmentindependent medical examinationCPLR 310322 NYCRR 202.17waiver of discoveryundue hardshippersonal injury damages
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chaplin v. Pathmark Supermarkets

This case addresses a motion by defendants, including Supermarkets General Corp., for a protective order to vacate the plaintiff Mimi Chaplin's notice for discovery and inspection of accident reports. Mimi Chaplin sought these reports after sustaining personal injuries from a fall at the defendant's premises. The court, presided over by Justice James F. Niehoff, analyzed the newly enacted CPLR 3101 (g), which mandates full disclosure of accident reports prepared in the regular course of business. The court found that the accident report in question was prepared in Supermarkets General Corp.'s regular course of business, rendering it discoverable regardless of its potential use in litigation, thus denying the defendants' motion.

DiscoveryProtective OrderAccident ReportsCPLR 3101(g)Litigation PreparationRegular Course of BusinessPersonal InjuryNegligenceDisclosureEvidence
References
10
Case No. SAL SJO 252436 (MF); SJO 246192
Regular
Jul 02, 2007

NIHAL HORDAGODA vs. State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves an employer's petition for reconsideration of an order authorizing medical treatment and admitting the Qualified Medical Examiner's (QME) reports. The employer argued the QME reports were inadmissible due to an alleged ex parte communication between the applicant and the QME, and that the awarded treatments were improper. The report recommends denying the petition, finding the communication was permissible under LC § 4062.3(h) and that the QME's opinions and awarded treatments for chronic pain were reasonable and not governed by ACOEM guidelines.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code Section 4062.3Ophthalmological evaluationFunctional capacity evaluationUtilization ReviewACOEM GuidelinesChronic spinal conditionTreating physician
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2013

Chiari v. New York Racing Ass'n

Plaintiff Luis Alberto Chiari filed an action against the New York Racing Association (NYRA) and Local Union 3, I.B.E.W., alleging violations of COBRA, ADA, and LMRA stemming from his employment termination. Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson issued a Report and Recommendation, advising that the defendants' motions for summary judgment be granted and all of the plaintiff's claims be dismissed. District Judge Feuerstein reviewed the plaintiff's objections to this report. Finding the objections to be either reiterations of prior arguments or insufficiently specific, and discerning no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's findings, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, thereby granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing all of Chiari's claims with prejudice.

Employment LawDiscriminationSummary JudgmentCOBRA ViolationsADA ClaimsLMRA ClaimsBreach of Collective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationPro Se PlaintiffTermination
References
81
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Report of the Special Grand Jury

This case involves five appeals challenging the procedures and evidence supporting a Special Grand Jury's reports, which recommended discipline or removal for employees of the Monroe County Department of Social Services. The Grand Jury was empanelled in 1978 to investigate the department's handling of child abuse cases. Although the County Court accepted the reports for filing, it sealed them pending appeal and later affirmed its decision. The appellate court, however, found significant procedural irregularities, including inadequate jury instructions and improper subcommittee formation, and determined that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the misconduct charges against the appellants. Consequently, the County Court's orders were reversed, and the Grand Jury reports were ordered to be sealed.

Grand Jury ReportChild Abuse InvestigationMonroe County Department of Social ServicesPublic Servants MisconductProcedural IrregularitiesSufficiency of EvidenceGrand Jury InstructionsSealing ReportsCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2006

Rivera v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Russell Rivera, Jr. challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying him Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Frank Maas, who issued a Report and Recommendation to remand the action for further administrative proceedings, citing deficiencies in the plaintiff's hearing. After defendant objected to a time limit, an Amended Report and Recommendation was issued, omitting the disputed time limitation. District Judge Richard J. Holwell, finding no clear error, adopted the Amended Report in its entirety, granting the Commissioner’s motion. The court's decision was based on the Administrative Law Judge's failure to fully develop the administrative record and adequately consider the treating physician’s opinion, Dr. Asbury, whose findings differed from a nonexamining medical consultant.

Social Security BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeDisability DeterminationAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) ReviewRemand OrderTreating Physician RuleMedical AssessmentHIV/AIDS ImpairmentHepatitis C DiagnosisProcedural Error
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grant v. Rycoline Products, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order from December 20, 1996, which denied the defendant-appellant's motion to reject a Special Referee’s report and for a protective order, confirming the report and directing the production of certain records. Additionally, the court modified an order from February 28, 1997, to grant the defendant-appellant 45 days to comply with the directive, specifically for the production of redacted employee worker compensation records. The court found that the IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the Referee’s report.

Discovery DisputeProtective OrderSpecial RefereeWorkers' Compensation RecordsCompliance ExtensionJudicial DiscretionAppellate ReviewMotion DenialRecord Production
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2004

Claim of Stoudenmyre v. Loretto Rest Nursing Home

Claimant, a personal care aide, sustained a foot injury and her workers' compensation claim was established. Subsequently, an independent medical examination (IME) report was requested to address permanency. Claimant moved to preclude the IME report, arguing it was improperly mailed by Brookside Consultants, Inc., an IME services company, instead of the physician, violating Workers' Compensation Law § 137. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the motion, which the Board affirmed. This Court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that properly registered IME services companies are authorized to perform administrative functions like mailing reports, thereby substantially complying with Workers' Compensation Law § 137, as established in Matter of Clark v Siara Mgt., Inc.

IME reportmailing proceduresWorkers' Compensation Lawadministrative functionspermanency of injuryindependent medical examinationmedical reportsreport submissionappellate reviewBoard affirmation
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 5,201 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