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

Perfect Dental, PLLC v. Allstate Insurance

In this consolidated action, plaintiffs Perfect Dental Care, P.C., Zodiac Dental, PLLC, and Smooth Dental PLLC (Dental PCs) sought unpaid insurance claims from Allstate Insurance Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Insurers). The Insurers countersued alleging insurance fraud and unjust enrichment, and initiated a third-party action against various individuals and entities. The Insurers moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a declaratory judgment that Dental PCs could not recover for services provided by dentists and physical therapists, and for summary judgment on their fraud and unjust enrichment counterclaims. The court denied summary judgment concerning dentists' services, finding a triable issue of fact regarding their employment status. However, it granted summary judgment for the Insurers regarding physical therapy services, as Dental PCs conceded these services were provided by non-employees. Consequently, the court also denied summary judgment on the fraud and unjust enrichment claims, as their resolution depended on the unresolved employment status of the dentists.

Insurance ClaimsHealthcare ServicesContract LawSummary JudgmentProfessional CorporationsIndependent ContractorsEmployment LawFraud AllegationsUnjust EnrichmentDeclaratory Judgment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Main Evaluations, Inc. v. State

The claimant, Main Medical Evaluations, entered into contracts with the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) to perform consultative medical evaluations. OTDA terminated these contracts, alleging the claimant failed to disclose professional disciplinary proceedings against its chief medical officer, Arvinder Sachdev, and submitted false information during the bidding process. Following the dismissal of its claim in the Court of Claims, the claimant appealed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that OTDA had legitimate grounds for termination due to the claimant's misrepresentations and failure to report substantial contract-related issues concerning Sachdev's integral role. Additionally, the court rejected the claimant's equal protection argument, finding no evidence of selective enforcement based on impermissible considerations.

Contract TerminationProfessional MisconductFalse RepresentationEqual ProtectionGovernment ContractsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractMedical LicensingAdministrative ProceedingsDue Diligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

First District Dental Society v. Sencer

The petitioners, dental societies in New York City, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to challenge a directive from the New York City Department of Health. The directive, dated August 14, 1981, mandated that all radiation installation licensees, including dental offices, make complete copies of Article 175 of the New York City Health Code available for staff examination. Petitioners argued this requirement was arbitrary and capricious due to its impracticality, financial burden, and the existence of an alternative provision allowing a descriptive notice. Respondents defended the directive as a rational measure to protect public health and ensure worker instruction regarding radiation safety, aligning with state and federal regulations. The court, applying the standard for administrative review, found a rational basis for the Department's interpretation and upheld the directive, denying the petitioners' request for nullification, though a 60-day stay on enforcement was granted.

Radiation SafetyHealth CodeAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewDental PracticesRegulatory CompliancePublic HealthArticle 78 ProceedingsAgency InterpretationDirective Challenge
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

55th Management Corp. v. Goldman

This case addresses whether an out-of-court statement made to a court evaluator in an Article 81 guardianship proceeding is protected by absolute privilege, thereby defeating a defamation claim. The defendant, a tenant, made allegedly defamatory remarks about a landlord to a court evaluator during the evaluator's investigation for a guardianship proceeding. The court considered if the remarks were pertinent, if a statement to a court evaluator is considered part of a judicial proceeding, and if the speaker had standing. The court found the remarks pertinent, extended the absolute privilege to statements made to court evaluators given their role as court agents, and affirmed the defendant's standing as a potential witness. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was granted.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsCourt EvaluatorGuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Tenant-Landlord DisputeMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Scope of Privilege
References
44
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01355
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2020

Naula v. Utokilen, LLC

The plaintiff, Victor Naula, commenced an action for personal injuries against Utokilen, LLC, and others. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) found Naula's employer, Specialized Dental Construction, Inc., uninsured and Adapt Construction, LLC, to be the general contractor, awarding Naula workers' compensation benefits. Utokilen and Nancy Marin-Rojas D.D.S., P.C., initiated a third-party action against Specialized Dental for common-law indemnification and contribution. Specialized Dental moved for summary judgment, asserting exclusivity under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, but Utokilen and Marin-Rojas cross-moved, arguing Specialized Dental could not invoke § 11 due to its uninsured status. The Supreme Court granted the cross-motion and denied Specialized Dental's motion. The Appellate Division dismissed Adapt Construction, LLC's appeal as it was not an aggrieved party and affirmed the Supreme Court's order against Specialized Dental Construction, Inc.

Personal InjuriesWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentThird-Party ClaimsIndemnificationContributionGrave InjuryUninsured EmployerAppellate PracticeCollateral Estoppel
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 1999

Bulvas v. Dubrowsky

The plaintiffs appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which dismissed their complaint alleging dental malpractice. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, ruling that the plaintiffs' argument regarding insufficient evidence was not preserved for review. It further held that the jury had a rational basis to conclude that no dental malpractice occurred, and the verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, thus dismissing the appeal.

Dental MalpracticeAppellate ReviewJury VerdictSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceAffirmationRockland CountyCivil ProcedureMedical MalpracticeJudgment Dismissal
References
8
Case No. ADJ3108970
Regular
Feb 14, 2023

RUSSELL BLAIR vs. TRUGREEN LANDSCAPE, TERMINIX, SERVICEMASTER BRANDS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration to further develop the record. The Board found that the treating physician's psychiatric reports were stale and lacked sufficient detail regarding apportionment of permanent disability. Additionally, the Board determined that the applicant's dental injury claim requires further medical evaluation to establish industrial causation. Consequently, the case is remanded to the Workers' Compensation Judge for further proceedings regarding the dental injury, psychiatric disability, and overall permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeArising Out of and In the Course of Employment (AOE/COE)Lumbar SpineRight HipPsychePsychiatric Permanent DisabilityDental Injury Claim
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Carew

The court considered two child abuse petitions filed by the Suffolk County Department of Social Services against a father, based on unsworn statements from his three and five-year-old children. The respondent father moved for psychiatric evaluations of the children and their mother to defend against the allegations, citing the need for expert assessment of the children's credibility. The court balanced the children's welfare against the father's right to a fair trial, noting the unique challenges of corroborating out-of-court statements in Article 10 proceedings. The court granted the father's request to the extent of ordering a validation interview for both children, stipulating a court-designated examiner if parties could not agree. The request for the mother's examination was denied due to insufficient justification.

Child AbuseFamily Court ActPsychiatric EvaluationChild CredibilityHearsay TestimonyCorroboration RequirementDue ProcessParental RightsSuffolk CountyUnsworn Statements
References
5
Case No. ADJ9317950
Regular
Nov 27, 2017

PEFLEY, Twana vs. FOOTHILL DENTAL, INC., HARTFORD INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Twana Pefley's Petition for Removal in the case against Foothill Dental, Inc. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found that Pefley failed to demonstrate such harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse decision were to issue. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration Adequate RemedyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10843(a)
References
2
Case No. ADJ519728
Regular
Aug 08, 2011

LOWELL BAPTISTE vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding industrial injury and temporary total disability dating back to 2000. The Board found that the medical opinion relied upon by the workers' compensation judge was not substantial evidence due to staleness, lack of complete records, and insufficient specialization. To ensure a fair resolution, the Board ordered new evaluations by independent orthopedic and psychiatric physicians, who will report on all outstanding medical issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCompelling Medical EvaluationsTemporary Total DisabilityIndustrial InjuryOrthopedicsPsychiatrySubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionWCJ
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,964 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