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. ADJ2888679
Regular
Dec 29, 2011

RAMON BARAJAS vs. PIRANHA PIPE AND PRE-CAST, INC., MARSH USA

Lien claimants Face-2-Face and Dickman sought reconsideration after their liens were dismissed for non-appearance at a lien conference. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the dismissal order, and reinstated the liens. This action was taken because subsequent stipulations and orders on November 15, 2011, approved settlements for both Face-2-Face and Dickman's liens, resolving their claims. The Board's decision effectively affirmed these settlements while dismissing other previously dismissed liens.

Lien ClaimantReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LiensNotice of Intention to Dismiss LiensWCJPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation and OrderStipulation and AgreementRescindedIndustrial Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Weslin

This case involves eleven defendants, including Norman Weslin, charged with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) after being arrested outside a Planned Parenthood facility in Rochester, New York. Defendant Weslin moved to dismiss the information, arguing that FACE is unconstitutional. Chief Judge Larimer denied the motion, finding FACE to be content-neutral and subject to intermediate scrutiny. The court upheld FACE against First Amendment Free Speech and Free Exercise Clause challenges, and also affirmed that it is a valid exercise of Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause, as it regulates activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances ActFirst AmendmentFree SpeechFree Exercise of ReligionCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeAbortion Clinic ProtestsPhysical ObstructionContent-Neutral RegulationIntermediate Scrutiny
References
17
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03080 [228 AD3d 426]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2024

DiMaggio v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

Plaintiffs Salvatore DiMaggio et al. alleged that Salvatore was struck in the face by a metal rod during a construction project, resulting in injuries to his face, head, and spine, as well as aggravation of prior asymptomatic conditions. Defendants Port Authority of New York and New Jersey et al. subsequently sought authorizations for records related to 19 prior incidents involving an individual named "Salvatore DiMaggio" and moved to compel discovery or dismiss the case. The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' motion to the extent of compelling plaintiffs to provide a Jackson affidavit and authorizations. However, the Appellate Division modified this order, ruling that the requirement for a Jackson affidavit was improper, as that procedure applies when documents are claimed to be missing, not when seeking authorizations from third parties, and CPLR 3130 prohibits interrogatories upon a party served with a demand for a bill of particulars. The Appellate Division affirmed the compulsion for plaintiffs to provide authorizations for records related to claims made by Salvatore and incidents in which he was involved, given his acknowledgement of involvement in some prior incidents and failure to timely object to the demands. The court further limited the scope of these authorizations to records relating to injuries to or treatment of Salvatore DiMaggio's face, mouth, head, cervical spine, and/or thoracolumbar spine, due to the nature of the alleged injuries and the principle that general anxiety/depression from physical injuries does not place entire mental health into contention, while allowing them to be unrestricted by date due to allegations of exacerbated preexisting injuries.

DiscoveryAuthorizationsMedical RecordsPreexisting InjuriesJackson AffidavitCPLR 3126CPLR 3130Waiver of ObjectionAppellate ProcedurePersonal Injury
References
11
Case No. ADJ7499067
Regular
Jan 25, 2013

SUSANA AGUILAR VEGA vs. INTELLIGENT BEAUTY, ONEBEACON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

Lien claimants Face 2 Face Interpreting and One World Translation Inc. sought reconsideration of an order dismissing their liens with prejudice. The WCAB dismissed their petitions because they were unverified, a requirement under Labor Code section 5902. The WCJ's report alerted the lien claimants to this defect, and they failed to cure it or provide an explanation within a reasonable time. Even if the petitions had been verified, the WCAB would have denied them on the merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissal of LiensUnverified PetitionLabor Code Section 5902Verification DefectGood CauseNotice of Intention to DismissLien ClaimantsWCJ Report
References
1
Case No. 146
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. McCrudden

This Memorandum and Order addresses two supervised release violations by Vincent McCrudden. Charge 4 alleged McCrudden associated with known felons, which the court found proven through letters and phone calls, determining that face-to-face contact is not a prerequisite for association. Charge 5 asserted McCrudden made materially false statements to his probation officer by denying contact with felons. The court ruled these falsehoods were material because they impaired the officer's ability to monitor and make informed decisions about McCrudden's compliance. Both charges were proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

supervised release violationassociation with felonsfalse statementsmaterialityprobation officercriminal activitySecond Circuit precedentfederal law18 U.S.C. 1001preponderance of evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 1996

In re Markeyta G.

Ms. B. failed to appear in Family Court for a petition alleging violation of a prior neglect order concerning her child, Markeyta G. The Suffolk County Department of Social Services (DSS) applied for a warrant for her arrest. Judge Kerry R. Trainor reserved decision on the warrant, citing Ms. B.'s history of evading warrants and the inadequacy of a warrant alone given DSS's electronic benefit distribution system. The court ordered the DSS Commissioner to utilize existing regulations (18 NYCRR 351.20-351.22) to compel Ms. B.'s appearance by requiring a 'face-to-face' interview at Family Court, with the threat of discontinuing her public assistance if she fails to comply. This measure aims to secure her appearance before reconsidering the arrest warrant, emphasizing cooperation between agencies under Family Court Act § 255.

Family CourtNeglect ProceedingWarrant of ArrestPublic AssistanceSocial Services RegulationsCompliance OrderJudicial AuthorityAdministrative LawFoster CareSuffolk County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Morel

This case involves a criminal prosecution for contempt of court, based on the defendant allegedly violating a Supreme Court order of protection, running concurrently with a civil child neglect proceeding in Family Court where the defendant also allegedly violated an interim order of protection. The defendant moved to renew and reargue a prior decision dated June 15, 2012, which had denied dismissal on double jeopardy grounds. Upon reargument, the court reversed its original ruling, finding that the criminal prosecution is barred by federal constitutional double jeopardy principles. Citing Breed v Jones, the court determined that jeopardy attached when the Family Court began to hear evidence in the combined fact-finding hearing under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, especially since the defendant faced potential punitive consequences, including incarceration, in the civil proceeding. Therefore, since the factual allegations in both the criminal and civil cases are identical in part, and the defendant faces a punitive sanction in Family Court, the criminal contempt proceeding is dismissed.

Criminal ContemptDouble JeopardyFamily Court Act Article 10Orders of ProtectionChild Neglect ProceedingsFederal Constitutional LawMotion to ReargueMotion to RenewPunitive SanctionsCivil vs. Criminal Proceedings
References
10
Case No. ADJ 4564224
En Banc
Sep 17, 2008

Maria Tapia vs. Skill Master Staffing, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

This case establishes that a medical lien claimant bears the burden of proving its charges are reasonable, and the billing alone does not suffice as proof. A lien may be deemed unreasonable on its face, even without rebuttal evidence. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision to reduce the lien based on various forms of rebuttal evidence showing the billed amount was excessive.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSB Surgery CenterLiberty Mutual Insurance CompanyKunz v. Patterson Floor Coveringsreasonable value of servicesoutpatient surgery center lienburden of proofrebuttal evidencegeographic areaDiagnosis Related Groups
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2000

Claim of White v. Food

The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a decision ruling that the claimant had given timely notice of injury to their employer. The appellate court found no basis to disturb the Board's decision to credit the claimant's testimony, which was supported by his wife's testimony. The Board, as the sole and final arbiter of witness credibility, was within its authority to determine if the testimony was worthy of belief, even when faced with contradictory evidence from employer forms.

Workers' CompensationAppealTimely NoticeWitness CredibilityBoard DecisionAffirmationEmployer LiabilityInjury NotificationTestimony EvaluationAppellate Division
References
4
Case No. ADJ7241075; ADJ8175491
Regular
Oct 16, 2013

YVONNE BRADLEY vs. ROWLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for removal. The claimant argued the judge lacked jurisdiction and faced prejudice from an order taking the case off calendar. However, the Board found the order was proper as parties were unprepared for trial. The Board also initiated sanctions against the lien claimant for submitting excessive, irrelevant documents and misrepresenting facts regarding ex parte communications.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderLien ClaimantEx Parte CommunicationSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Court Administrator Rule 10232WCAB Rule 10561Declaration of Readiness
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 269 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