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

In re Horace

This case involves an order to show cause initiated by the New York Attorney-General, Dennis C. Vacco, against John Horace. The Attorney-General sought to compel Horace to provide a blood sample for DNA analysis in connection with a rape investigation and requested that affidavits and exhibits be sealed. John Horace filed a cross-motion for discovery and an adjournment. The court, presided over by Justice Charles J. Siragusa, granted the sealing request only under New York Civil Rights Law § 50-b to protect the victim's identity, Jane Doe, but rejected other grounds. Relying on legal precedents such as *Matter of Abe A.*, the court found probable cause for rape in the first degree and that Horace was the perpetrator, affirming the need for a safe and reliable blood sample. Consequently, the court granted the Attorney-General's application to compel the blood sample and denied Horace's cross-motion.

Rape in the First DegreeCompelled Blood SampleDNA AnalysisProbable Cause StandardVictim Identity ProtectionCivil Rights Law 50-bMedical Examiner TestimonyForensic SerologyHandwriting AnalysisCriminal Procedure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2002

Claim of Crisci v. IBM Corp.

This case concerns an employer's appeal from two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board initially granted the claimant's request to compel the employer to provide samples of chemicals to the claimant's physician for allergy testing related to dermatitis. The employer had refused, citing company policy and the commercial availability of the chemicals. After some back-and-forth decisions by Workers' Compensation Law Judges, the Board ultimately required the employer to produce samples of six specific chemicals that the physician could not obtain. The employer also appealed the Board's denial of reconsideration. The Appellate Division affirmed both Board decisions, finding no abuse of discretion in ordering the production of samples to ascertain the parties' substantial rights under Workers’ Compensation Law § 118, and no arbitrariness in denying reconsideration.

Workers’ Compensation BoardAppealsChemical SamplesDermatitisAllergy TestingEmployer ObligationsDiscoveryWorkers’ Compensation LawAbuse of DiscretionReconsideration
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 1980

France v. St. Clare's Hospital & Health Center

The plaintiff, Joe France, sued St. Clare's Hospital for libel, alleging that a letter sent by the hospital to a co-worker falsely stated he had a venereal disease, which led to emotional stress, disruption of his relationship, and sexual impotence. The hospital had conducted routine blood tests after France donated blood, and his sample reacted positively to a VDRL test, leading to the letter informing his co-worker that his blood could not be used. Subsequent tests showed France did not have a venereal disease. The court, applying First Amendment principles from Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., found that without proof of malice or actual injury to reputation, claims for presumed damages or emotional distress alone are not compensable in New York. Since malice was conceded to be absent and no actual reputational harm was proven, the court reversed the lower court's denial and granted St. Clare's Hospital's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

LibelDefamationVenereal DiseaseVDRL TestSummary JudgmentActual InjuryPresumed DamagesFirst AmendmentReputationEmotional Distress
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'Angelo-Fenton v. Town of Carmel

Plaintiff Joann D’Angelo-Fenton brought an action against the Town of Carmel, its Police Department, several officers (Town Defendants), and The Journal News, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, alongside various state law claims including false arrest, unlawful search and seizure, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and defamation. The suit stemmed from an automobile accident where D'Angelo-Fenton was accused of driving while intoxicated, leading to her arrest, blood sample seizure, and a newspaper article reporting the incident. The court converted defendants' motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, ultimately finding that probable cause justified D'Angelo-Fenton's arrest and blood test. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing all federal and most state law claims with prejudice, and the defamation claims without prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Civil Rights42 U.S.C. § 198342 U.S.C. § 1985False ArrestUnlawful Search and SeizureMalicious ProsecutionSummary JudgmentProbable CauseDriving While Intoxicated (DWI)Defamation
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2013

Rozek v. New York Blood Center

The plaintiff, Susan Rozek, sued New York Blood Center (NYBC) and First Unum Life Insurance Company under ERISA after being denied long-term disability and Retirement Income Protection (RIP) benefits. Rozek alleged wrongful denial of benefits by First Unum under the NYBC Plan. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment. Despite evidence supporting Rozek's disability claim, the court found substantial medical evidence indicating she was not disabled according to the Plan's definition, and the defendants' decision was deemed not arbitrary or capricious. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims, including the RIP benefits claim due to the plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and denied attorneys' fees to the plaintiff.

ERISADisability BenefitsLong-Term DisabilityPlan Administrator DiscretionSummary JudgmentAdministrative Record ReviewSocial Security DisabilityWorkers' CompensationMedical EvaluationFunctional Capacity Evaluation
References
46
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07642
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Thomas (US Pack Logistics, LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

Aston R. Thomas, a claimant, was hired by US Pack Logistics, LLC to deliver blood samples. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that Thomas was an employee of US Pack Logistics, LLC, making the company liable for unemployment insurance contributions. US Pack Logistics, LLC appealed this decision to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's finding of an employer-employee relationship, noting that US Pack Logistics, LLC exercised sufficient supervision, direction, and control over significant aspects of Thomas's work, despite Thomas using his own vehicle and not being reimbursed for expenses. The court emphasized that the determination of an employment relationship is a question of fact, and the Board's decision, if supported by substantial evidence, is beyond further judicial review.

Unemployment Insurance LawEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance ContributionsLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardJudiciary Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abbo-Bradley v. City of Niagara Falls

Three families residing near the Love Canal Landfill initiated an action in New York State Supreme Court, Niagara County, seeking damages and equitable relief for personal injuries and property damage caused by alleged releases of toxic chemicals. The case was subsequently removed to federal court under original federal jurisdiction pursuant to CERCLA. Defendant Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. (GSH) filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief to establish a discovery protocol, requesting prior notice, contemporaneous access, and the opportunity for split samples during plaintiffs' environmental sampling activities. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, citing jurisdictional concerns, work product, and attorney-client privileges. The court, asserting its authority to maintain the status quo pending a remand decision, rejected the privilege claims and found that spoliation concerns warranted the injunction. Consequently, the court granted GSH's motion, enjoining plaintiffs from further environmental sampling without providing 96-hour written notice, contemporaneous access, and the opportunity for all parties to take split samples.

Environmental LitigationCERCLAPreliminary InjunctionDiscovery ProtocolSpoliation of EvidenceWork Product DoctrineAttorney-Client PrivilegeLove CanalToxic WasteHazardous Materials
References
18
Case No. ADJ8997142
Regular
Jul 12, 2018

Dave Zada vs. Allpro Millworking, Inc., Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior decision and found the applicant's claim for blood cancer barred by the statute of limitations. The WCAB acknowledged that the applicant's prior claim for a stroke was already barred by res judicata. However, the WCAB determined that the applicant had knowledge of his blood cancer being work-related in 2004, but failed to file a claim until 2013. Therefore, the claim for blood cancer was untimely.

AOE/COERes JudicataStatute of LimitationsPolycythemia Rubra VeraBlood CancerStrokeChemical ExposureCumulative InjurySpecific InjuryWCJ
References
3
Case No. ADJ13173690
Regular
Feb 07, 2023

CHRISTOPHE LELONG vs. BEVERLY HILLS POLICE DEPARTMENT, CORVEL

This case involves a police officer diagnosed with a sinus and respiratory infection caused by *Citrobacter koseri*, a bacteria transmissible through blood. The applicant sustained symptoms during his employment, triggering the presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code section 3212.8. The defendant challenged the presumption, arguing the bacteria's transmission was uncertain and not solely blood-borne. However, the Board affirmed the initial award, finding the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof to rebut the presumption, as the bacteria is capable of being carried or transmitted by blood.

Labor Code 3212.8blood-borne infectious diseasepresumption of industrial causationCitrobacter koseripolice officeroccupational exposuresinus infectionrespiratory systemindustrial injuryrebuttal of presumption
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lapir v. Maimonides Medical Center

Olga Lapir sued her former employer, Maimonides Medical Center (MMC), and her union, Local 1199, under the Labor Management Relations Act. She alleged that MMC breached their collective bargaining agreement by terminating her employment without good cause and that the union failed to process her grievance, breaching its duty of fair representation. Lapir was fired as a blood bank technician after an incident where she assisted a doctor in locating special blood, violating hospital confidentiality and blood segregation policies. The court found that the union's investigation and defense were not arbitrary or in bad faith, and its decision not to pursue arbitration was rational, especially given Lapir's admitted misconduct. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, dismissing Lapir's complaint.

Labor RelationsDuty of Fair RepresentationSummary Judgment MotionWrongful Termination ClaimCollective BargainingGrievance ArbitrationHospital Blood Bank PolicyEmployee ConfidentialityUnion Due DiligenceFederal District Court
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 117 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