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. 2021 NY Slip Op 04626 [197 AD3d 518]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2021

D. S. v. Positive Behavior Support Consulting & Psychological Resources, P.C.

This case involves an appeal by the Port Jefferson School District from an order denying its motion to dismiss a personal injury complaint. The infant plaintiff, a special education student, was allegedly injured by a therapist, Vito Silecchia, during a behavioral therapy session. The plaintiffs sued the School District, among others, alleging Silecchia was an employee or agent. The District contended Silecchia was an independent contractor retained through Positive Behavior Support Consulting and Psychological Resources, P.C. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the dismissal motion, stating that the complaint adequately stated a cause of action and that documentary evidence did not conclusively establish an independent contractor relationship, given provisions in the agreement suggesting the District maintained some control over the services.

Personal InjuryRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewVicarious LiabilitySchool District LiabilitySpecial EducationTherapist NegligenceCPLR 3211 (a) (1)
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

N.C. ex rel. M.C. v. Bedford Central School District

Mr. and Mrs. N.C., on behalf of their son M.C. (Plaintiffs), filed a lawsuit against the Bedford Central School District (Defendant) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). They challenged administrative determinations for the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 school years, which concluded that M.C. was not a student with a disability due to emotional disturbance. M.C. had a history of sexual abuse, ADHD, behavioral problems, and drug use, leading Plaintiffs to unilaterally place him in a private boarding school and seek tuition reimbursement. The Committee on Special Education, Impartial Hearing Officers, and State Review Officer consistently found M.C. to be socially maladjusted with drug use as the primary issue, rather than an emotional disturbance adversely affecting his educational performance. The federal court conducted a de novo review, upholding the administrative decisions and denying Plaintiffs' request for tuition reimbursement for both academic years.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActEmotional Disturbance ClassificationTuition ReimbursementUnilateral PlacementDue Process HearingImpartial Hearing OfficerState Review OfficerCommittee on Special EducationSocial MaladjustmentAcademic Performance
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 1996

Isnardi v. Genovese Drug Stores, Inc.

Thomas Isnardi was injured on September 13, 1993, after falling from a scaffold while performing demolition work on premises owned by Genovese Drug Stores, Inc. He sued Genovese and the general contractor, Robbins & Cowan, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide adequate scaffolding. Robbins & Cowan, Inc. then filed a third-party action against Joe Demasco, Isnardi's employer. The Supreme Court granted Isnardi summary judgment on liability. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, denying the plaintiff's motion, as there was a factual dispute regarding whether Isnardi was a recalcitrant worker who refused to use a provided safe "pipe" scaffold, opting instead for an allegedly less stable "Baker" scaffold.

Personal InjuryScaffold FallDemolition WorkRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentLabor LawConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationAppellate Reversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernard v. Commerce Drug Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Peter S. Bernard brought claims against Commerce Drug Company and Del Laboratories, Inc. for trademark violations under the Lanham Act and state law concerning the product 'Arthriticare.' Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on trademark infringement and judgment on the pleadings for fraudulent trademark registration, while plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment. The court found plaintiff's 'Arthriticare' mark to be descriptive and lacking secondary meaning, thus granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on the trademark infringement claim. The claim for fraudulent trademark registration was dismissed as defendants' mark was not registered. All remaining state and common law claims were dismissed due to the absence of federal claims and diversity jurisdiction.

Trademark InfringementLanham ActSummary JudgmentJudgment on PleadingsDescriptive TrademarkSecondary MeaningFraudulent RegistrationPendent JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionUnregistered Mark
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halsey Drug Co. v. Drug, Chemical, Cosmetic, Plastics & Affiliated Industries Warehouse Employees, Local 815

Plaintiff Halsey Drug Co., Inc. (Halsey) filed an action against Defendant Drug, Chemical, Cosmetic, Plastic and Affiliated Industries Warehouse Employees, Local 815 (Local 815) under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act and the Labor Management Relations Act. Halsey sought a declaration from the court regarding the arbitrability of certain issues related to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) after closing its Brooklyn facility and moving some operations to Congers, New York. Local 815 demanded that Halsey apply the CBA to the new Congers facility and offer employment to laid-off Brooklyn employees, subsequently filing for arbitration. Halsey argued that the claims arose after the CBA's expiration and should be handled by the National Labor Relations Board, not arbitration. The court, applying established labor law precedents regarding arbitrability, denied Halsey's motion for summary judgment and granted Local 815's motion, ruling that the dispute is arbitrable because the underlying facts arose before the CBA's expiration and involve contract interpretation.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationUnion RepresentationFederal Declaratory Judgment ActLabor Management Relations ActPost-expiration ClaimsArbitrability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Food & Drug Administration

This Memorandum and Order addresses several motions in a case brought by environmental and public interest groups against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The plaintiffs sought to compel the FDA to initiate proceedings to withdraw approval of certain antibiotics used non-therapeutically in livestock. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to strike certain documents, adopted the Government's proposed schedule for complying with a previous order, and denied the Government's motion for a stay pending appeal. The judge found the FDA's decades-long delay in fulfilling its statutory duty to be unreasonable, justifying the imposition of a compliance timetable.

Antibiotic ResistanceAnimal Feed RegulationFDA EnforcementAdministrative Procedure ActFood, Drug, and Cosmetic ActMandamusJudicial ReviewStay Pending AppealSummary JudgmentPublic Health
References
41
Case No. Dkt. No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Pidkaminy v. Astrue

Plaintiff Randy J. Pidkaminy sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his Supplemental Security Income (SSI) application. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) previously found Pidkaminy not disabled, a decision later upheld by the Appeals Council. In this action, the court reviewed the ALJ's assessment of medical opinions from treating physicians and state agency consultants, affirming the weight given to non-examining sources. The court also upheld the ALJ's credibility determination regarding Pidkaminy's subjective complaints and inconsistent statements about his work history and drug-seeking behavior. Ultimately, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted the defendant's motion, affirmed the Commissioner's decision, and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint.

Social Security ActSupplemental Security IncomeDisability BenefitsALJ Decision ReviewMedical Opinion AssessmentTreating Physician RuleCredibility EvaluationResidual Functional CapacityNonexertional LimitationsVocational Expert
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2006

United States v. Henderson

Defendant Henderson, facing a triple-murder drug racketeering capital case, invoked 18 U.S.C. § 3432, seeking a list of witnesses and their addresses. The Government provided witness names but withheld addresses for 27 individuals, citing safety concerns as permitted by the statute. After a hearing on October 30, 2006, the Court, presided over by District Judge Owen, found sufficient evidence that disclosing the addresses could jeopardize the life or safety of witnesses and jurors, given the violent nature of the alleged crimes by the 'Murder Unit' drug gang. The Court noted the defendants' alleged involvement in a triple throat-slitting homicide during a drug robbery and attempts to obstruct justice, alongside a history of violence by the 'Murder Unit.' Consequently, the defendant's objection to the nondisclosure of witness addresses was denied, affirming the Government's position.

Capital caseWitness safetyDrug racketeeringMurderFederal procedureJury selectionNondisclosureOrganized crimeViolent crimeCourt order
References
1
Case No. ADJ3797268 (MON 0304228)
Regular
Jun 30, 2016

HECTOR RENTERIA vs. BROWN, BUNYAN, MOON & MOORE, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves two lien claimants, Whittier Drugs and University Imaging Center, seeking reconsideration of an administrative law judge's decision. The Board denied Whittier Drugs' petition, adopting the judge's reasoning. University Imaging Center's petition was dismissed as untimely, as it was filed beyond the 25-day statutory deadline. The Board emphasized that timeliness is jurisdictional and a petition must be *received* by the Board within the allowed period.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantTimelinessJurisdictionalFindings and Order and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeWCAB Rule 10508Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Whittier Drugs
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 3,149 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