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

People v. Barto

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in Seneca County Court for insurance fraud in the third degree, falsifying business records in the first degree, defrauding the government, and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree. The charges arose from the defendant, an acting Village Justice, falsely reporting an assault to police, allegedly to obtain prescription pain medication. Medical evidence presented by the prosecution, including the absence of injuries despite extensive testing, contradicted the defendant's account of being strangled and struck. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment, rejecting the defendant's contentions regarding the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The court found that the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant falsely reported the incident and caused a false workers' compensation form to be filed. The appellate court also found no reason to modify the sentence despite improper prosecutorial statements.

Insurance FraudFalsifying Business RecordsDefrauding GovernmentFalse ReportingAssault ClaimMedical EvidenceLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceWorkers' CompensationJury Trial
References
8
Case No. 702991/18
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2026

Cannon v. H&L Contr., LLC

The plaintiff, James Cannon, sued H & L Contracting, LLC for personal injuries sustained in two separate incidents in January 2018 while working on a project to repair the fender system of the Whitestone Bridge. The first incident involved slipping from an excavator step into a hole on a crane mat on a barge. The second incident occurred when the plaintiff allegedly fell while crossing a gap between a concrete pile cap and the shore after disembarking the barge. The Supreme Court denied both the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision regarding the defendant's motion, granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint for both incidents. The court found that the defendant's liability for the first incident fell under its role as employer, not vessel owner, under the LHWCA, and for the second incident, the injury occurred on an extension of land, not an appurtenance of the vessel. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLongshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation ActVessel NegligenceEmployer LiabilityDual-Capacity DefendantAdmiralty LawMaritime LawAppellate ReviewWorker Safety
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Molloy v. DiNapoli

The petitioner, a correction officer, sought performance of duty disability retirement benefits after sustaining multiple left shoulder injuries across several work-related incidents. While the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System conceded permanent disability, the respondent Comptroller denied the application, concluding that the initial June 6, 2008 incident was not the proximate cause of the disability. Conflicting medical evidence was presented, with orthopedic surgeon Andrew Beharrie linking the disability to the 2008 incident, while independent medical examiner Bradley Wiener attributed the need for surgical intervention to subsequent incidents in 2009 and 2010. The Hearing Officer and Comptroller credited Wiener's opinion, noting the lack of immediate medical treatment after the first incident and the petitioner's return to full duty. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, finding it to be supported by rational, fact-based medical opinion and substantial evidence.

Disability RetirementPerformance of DutyCorrection OfficerShoulder InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationComptroller's DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceCPLR Article 78
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Regan

Petitioner, a police officer, was involved in two line-of-duty incidents in 1971 and 1979 where he shot armed individuals. These incidents caused him serious psychological trauma and rendered him incapable of working. He filed for accidental disability retirement benefits in 1982, which were denied by the State Comptroller. The Comptroller’s reasons were that the incidents did not constitute 'accidents' under Retirement and Social Security Law § 363, and the petitioner failed to timely file notice as required. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, citing that the incidents arose in the regular course of duty and were within the petitioner’s training and expected duties, thus not constituting accidents. Furthermore, the court found no compliance with the statutory notice requirements.

accidental disability retirementpolice officerline-of-duty injurypsychological traumaState Comptroller determinationadministrative reviewCPLR Article 78 proceedingtimely notice requirementWorkers' Compensation BoardRetirement and Social Security Law
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07981 [177 AD3d 1068]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2019

Matter of Verille v. Gardner

Petitioner, a police detective, sought accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits for injuries sustained in 1980 and 2012. The New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System conceded that the 1980 incident constituted an accident and that petitioner was permanently incapacitated. However, the key issue was whether the 2012 incident occurred while petitioner was in service or performing employment duties. The Hearing Officer and Comptroller denied the applications, finding that the 2012 incident did not occur while petitioner was in service, despite his testimony conflicting with his C-3 workers' compensation claim and employer's report of injury form. The court confirmed the Comptroller's determination, finding substantial evidence to support the finding that petitioner was not in service at the time of the 2012 incident, thus not entitled to the benefits.

disability retirement benefitspolice detectiveaccidental disabilityperformance of duty disabilitymotor vehicle accidentcervical spine injuryleft wrist injuryin service determinationemployment dutiesComptroller determination
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Xerox Corp.

This is an employment discrimination case where Plaintiff Donna Johnson sued Defendant Xerox Corporation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law, alleging a hostile work environment. The claim was based on a single incident in January 2007, where a co-worker allegedly urinated in front of her while she was cleaning a men's restroom. Xerox moved for summary judgment, arguing that the incident was isolated and not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment, and that they took appropriate remedial action. The Court granted Xerox's motion, finding that the single incident by a non-supervisory co-worker did not meet the criteria for a hostile work environment and could not be imputed to Xerox. The Court also disregarded other incidents brought by the plaintiff's counsel, deeming them too distant in time or geography.

Employment DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VII Civil Rights ActNew York State Human Rights LawSexual HarassmentCo-worker HarassmentEmployer LiabilityIsolated IncidentRemedial Action
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernekes v. Catskill Regional Medical Center

Plaintiff initiated an action alleging assault by a fellow patient, 'John Doe,' at Catskill Regional Medical Center (CRMC). The core dispute involved plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, specifically an incident report authored by nurse Barbara Blume and a deposition of incident coordinator Ann Korabik. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion, ordering the disclosure of the report and Korabik's deposition. CRMC appealed, asserting the incident report was privileged under Public Health Law § 2805-Z and that this privilege was not waived by an employee's review. The appellate court affirmed the order for Korabik's deposition but reversed the disclosure of Blume's incident report, ruling that internal review did not constitute a waiver of privilege. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for an in camera review to determine the report's privilege status under Public Health Law § 2805-Z.

DiscoveryIncident ReportMedical Records PrivilegePublic Health LawWaiver of PrivilegeIn Camera ReviewHospital LiabilityAssaultPatient SafetyCivil Procedure
References
20
Case No. 23 NY3d 1021
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2014

The People v. Daniel Israel

In a 2014 appellate decision, the court affirmed a defendant's conviction for murder and attempted murder. The defendant, who shot into a crowd and at police, raised an extreme emotional disturbance defense, attributing his actions to PTSD from a prior stabbing. The prosecution rebutted this by presenting evidence of the defendant's violent incidents from 2002 and 2010. While the court found the 2002 incident evidence admissible, it deemed the 2010 incident evidence inadmissible but ultimately harmless error given the overwhelming proof of guilt and appropriate limiting instructions.

PTSD DefenseExtreme Emotional DisturbanceCriminal LiabilityUncharged CrimesPrior MisconductRebuttal EvidenceHarmless ErrorAppellate ReviewMurderAttempted Murder
References
14
Case No. ADJ9365068
Regular
May 26, 2015

JOSE PORTILLO vs. CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS, INC., TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a worker's compensation applicant who sought reconsideration of a decision denying his claim for injury AOE/COE. The applicant alleged a forklift incident caused his injuries, but the WCJ found he failed to prove the incident occurred or that his employer was notified prior to his termination. While the WCAB adopted the WCJ's findings, they also noted that even if an incident and notice were proven, the applicant failed to provide substantial medical evidence connecting post-termination treatment to the alleged injury, thus precluding benefits under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10).

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationWCJcredibility determinationpost-termination defenseLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)forklift incidentdeposition testimonymedical treatmentnotice to employer
References
5
Case No. ADJ10443669
Regular
Oct 04, 2017

Donna Carter vs. Rose International Group, OneBeacon Insurance Group

The Appeals Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Judge's finding that Donna Carter sustained an industrial injury to her right knee and left wrist on May 18, 2016. Despite inconsistencies in the applicant's testimony regarding a slip and fall incident, her account was corroborated by a witness who found her on the floor. Medical records from the day of the incident also supported the applicant's claim, establishing a clear mechanism of injury. The Board found that the common sense nature of a slip and fall does not require expert medical opinion to establish industrial causation for the incident itself.

ADJ10443669Rose International GroupOneBeacon Insurance GroupDonna CarterWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Decision After Reconsiderationslip and fallindustrial injuryright kneeleft wrist
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 940 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