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. ADJ3533713
Regular
Nov 07, 2011

JUANA LOPEZ vs. THE MERCHANT OF TENNIS, HARTFORD INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removed this matter for the purpose of imposing sanctions. The WCAB found that the petition for reconsideration filed by SIR Practice Solutions, LLC on behalf of several lien claimants was skeletal, unintelligible, and violated multiple WCAB rules regarding evidentiary and legal support. The lien claimants and SIR Practice Solutions, LLC failed to object to the Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions within the allotted time. Therefore, the WCAB imposed sanctions of $250.00 against each individual lien claimant and found SIR Practice Solutions, LLC jointly and severally liable for these sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionsLien ClaimantsSIR Practice SolutionsPetition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionAppeals Board Rule 10846Labor Code Section 5813Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartman v. Bell

This case involves an appeal concerning a contract for the sale of a medical practice. A plaintiff physician agreed to sell his practice to defendant physicians, with payment contingent on a percentage of industrial medicine income over three years, including a minimum payment, and further payments for six months thereafter. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against them. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding the agreement constituted an illegal fee-splitting arrangement under Education Law § 6509-a. The court emphasized that the law would not provide relief to parties involved in illegal arrangements, upholding public policy.

Fee-splittingMedical Practice SaleBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentUnjust EnrichmentPublic PolicyIllegal ContractProfessional Medical GroupAppellate DecisionContract Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. Cuevas

Petitioner filed an improper practice charge against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging that Level I supervisors were performing work previously exclusive to Level II supervisors, specifically zone supervision, booth audits, and investigations. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found a violation for zone supervision but not for the other tasks. PERB subsequently reversed the ALJ's decision regarding zone supervision, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish exclusivity. The petitioner then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination. The court, reviewing PERB's decision for substantial evidence, found that the petitioner did not meet its burden of demonstrating exclusivity for any of the disputed tasks due to significant overlap in supervisor duties. Consequently, PERB's determination dismissing the improper practice charge was confirmed.

improper practicepublic sector laborsupervisory rolesjob dutiesexclusivityCPLR article 78PERBNYCTACivil Service Lawzone supervision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reitman v. Mills

Petitioner's license to practice as a certified social worker was revoked in 1988 after pleading guilty to sodomy in the second degree. Following probation, he sought restoration of his license, citing rehabilitation efforts. Despite a peer subcommittee's recommendation for restoration, the Committee on the Professions and the Board of Regents recommended denial, a decision upheld by the Commissioner of Education. Petitioner's CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging this denial was dismissed by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, with the court finding no abuse of discretion given the gravity of the offense, the petitioner's admitted ongoing struggles with sexual attraction to adolescent males, and concerns regarding public safety, especially as he intended to operate a private practice from his home.

License RestorationProfessional MisconductSodomyFelony ConvictionRehabilitationPublic SafetyJudicial ReviewAdministrative DiscretionSocial WorkerAppellate Affirmation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Board of Regents of University

Petitioner, a licensed optometrist in New York since 1981, faced eight specifications of professional misconduct between 1980 and 1985 while employed by American Vision Center. Charges included negligence, gross negligence, practicing beyond authorized scope by administering Neosporin, and unprofessional conduct for delegating responsibilities to unlicensed staff and failing to wear a name tag. A Hearing Panel found petitioner guilty, recommending a license suspension and fine. The Regents Review Committee modified these findings, and the respondent further narrowed the period of charges. Petitioner challenged the determination, alleging denial of due process due to lack of specificity and delay. The Court rejected the due process claims, finding charges specific and no actual prejudice from delay. While the Court found substantial evidence for negligence, unauthorized practice, and unprofessional conduct, it annulled the finding of gross negligence. Despite this annulment, the Court upheld the original penalty, modifying the determination only to reflect the removal of the gross negligence finding, and otherwise confirming the decision.

Optometry license suspensionProfessional misconductUnlicensed practiceDelegation of professional responsibilitiesGross negligenceDue processAdministrative reviewCPLR Article 78Education LawRegents Review Committee
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1977

Prate v. Freedman

This case involved white applicants who sued the City of Rochester, New York, alleging reverse discrimination in police officer hiring practices that favored minority applicants. The plaintiffs challenged a prior consent decree from Howard v. Freedman, which had established affirmative action measures. Chief Judge Curtin dismissed the consolidated actions, ruling it an impermissible collateral attack on the Howard decree due to the plaintiffs' failure to intervene timely. The court also held that the Constitution permits limited preferences for previously discriminated groups and dismissed pendent state law claims as superseded by federal law. Finally, the court awarded attorney fees to the defendant-intervenors, finding the plaintiffs' suit unreasonable and vexatious.

Reverse DiscriminationAffirmative ActionPolice RecruitmentEmployment LawCollateral Attack DoctrineConsent DecreeJudicial ReviewAttorney Fee AwardSubject Matter JurisdictionState Law Preemption
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 1996

Fair v. 431 Fifth Avenue Associates

The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied summary judgment motions by Flushing Ironworks Corp. and Practical Construction Ltd., seeking to dismiss personal injury claims under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). On appeal, the order was affirmed. The appellate court found issues of fact regarding Flushing Ironworks Corp.'s control of the work site under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. Additionally, questions of fact existed regarding a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) related to a steel beam hoisting incident and 12 NYCRR 23-2.3 (a), where the load may have been released prematurely.

personal injuryLabor Lawsummary judgmentwork site controlcommon-law negligencehoisting accidentsteel beamIndustrial Codeappellate reviewfactual issues
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tosha Restaurants, LLC v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Shane A. Fuller was terminated from his part-time dishwasher position at a Denny's Restaurant due to a skin condition (psoriasis and cellulitis). He filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, alleging disability discrimination. The Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Commissioner of Human Rights found the employer guilty of an unlawful discriminatory practice under Executive Law § 296 and awarded Fuller damages for lost pay, counseling, and pain and suffering. The employer (petitioner) commenced a proceeding to annul this determination. The court reviewed the employer's explanations for termination (customer complaints, health concerns, scheduling issues) and found them to be pretexts for discrimination. The court confirmed the determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights and dismissed the employer's petition.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment TerminationPsoriasisCellulitisUnlawful Discriminatory PracticeExecutive LawHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewAdministrative DeterminationPretext for Discrimination
References
23
Case No. 21 NY3d 861
Regular Panel Decision

Town of Islip v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Town of Islip challenged a determination by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) that the Town committed an improper practice by unilaterally discontinuing the permanent assignment of town-owned vehicles to certain employees for commuting. PERB had found this practice to be an economic benefit and a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Town argued that the practice was illegal under its local code of ethics and therefore not subject to negotiation. The Court affirmed PERB's finding that the Town engaged in an improper practice, concluding that the past practice of providing 'take-home' vehicles was not illegal under the Town's code. However, the Court modified PERB's remedial order, finding it unreasonable to compel the Town to repurchase vehicles it had sold, and remitted the case for PERB to fashion a more practical remedy.

Public Employment Relations BoardImproper PracticeUnilateral ChangePast PracticeMandatory Subject of BargainingTake-Home VehiclesCommuting BenefitEconomic BenefitCivil Service LawTaylor Law
References
14
Case No. MISC. 251
Significant
Jul 08, 2008

Ramon B. Pellicer vs.

The Appeals Board denied Ramon B. Pellicer's petition to appear as a non-attorney representative, based on his disciplinary history with the State Bar and legal precedent preventing disbarred or suspended attorneys from practicing before the WCAB.

WCABPetition to PracticeHearing RepresentativeNon-AttorneyInvoluntary Inactive EnrollmentState Bar CourtDisciplinary ChargesRules of Professional ConductBusiness and Professions CodeMoral Turpitude
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 708 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