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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Carpentieri

The Government sued Frank Carpentieri under the False Claims Act and federal common law, alleging he made false statements regarding his medical history in his employment application to the United States Postal Service and subsequent disability benefit applications. Carpentieri filed cross-motions to dismiss, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction under FECA's preclusion-of-review provision (5 U.S.C. § 8128(b)) and failure to state a claim. The District Court denied Carpentieri's 12(b)(1) cross-motion regarding the False Claims Act claims, reserving judgment on federal common law claims, and denied the 12(b)(6) cross-motion. The court ruled that § 8128(b) does not bar the court from hearing the Government’s False Claims Act claims, distinguishing between reviewing the OWCP's benefit determination and inquiring into fraudulent conduct. Consideration of the Government's summary judgment motion was postponed pending supplemental briefs on damages.

False Claims ActFECAFraudDisability BenefitsEmployment ApplicationMedical HistoryJurisdictional DisputeSummary JudgmentFederal Common LawPreclusion of Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Starks

Defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the third degree and two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, stemming from his failure to report workers' compensation benefits while receiving social services benefits. The appellate court first addressed the defendant's Batson challenge regarding a peremptorily excused black juror, affirming the lower court's finding that the prosecutor's explanation was race-neutral. Next, the court found legally sufficient evidence to support the grand larceny conviction, noting that the defendant's misrepresentations were material and resulted in an overpayment exceeding $3,000. Additionally, the court rejected claims of abridged confrontation rights, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, the judgment was modified to impose concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentences for the grand larceny and false instrument for filing convictions, and as modified, affirmed.

Grand LarcenyFalse Instrument for FilingSocial Services Benefits FraudWorkers' Compensation OverpaymentBatson ChallengeJuror Peremptory ChallengeSufficiency of EvidenceConfrontation Clause RightsProsecutorial MisconductIneffective Assistance of Counsel
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1993

Ray v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Larry Ray, a maintenance worker, and Blake Willett, an LIRR Police Officer, were involved in a physical altercation where Willett allegedly beat and handcuffed Ray. Ray was later released by Willett's supervisor. Plaintiffs sued Willett and the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) for battery, false arrest and imprisonment, negligent retention, and civil rights violations under 42 USC § 1983. The Supreme Court, Kings County, dismissed claims against the LIRR for negligent retention and civil rights violations and dismissed the complaint against Willett due to defective service of process. The jury found Willett liable for battery and false arrest/imprisonment but not for civil rights violation. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the dismissals, concluding that Willett's conduct was not within the scope of employment and he was not acting under color of state law, and that service upon Willett was indeed defective.

BatteryFalse ImprisonmentCivil Rights ViolationNegligent RetentionRespondeat SuperiorPolice MisconductPersonal JurisdictionService of ProcessAppellate LawKings County
References
17
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02209
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2020

Matter of Teabout v. Albany County Sheriff's Dept.

Claimant Michele A. Teabout appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found her in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The Board upheld a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's determination to rescind awards and disqualify her from future wage replacement benefits. The violation stemmed from false statements made by Teabout regarding her work activities and her failure to disclose relevant psychiatric history to an examining physician. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Teabout knowingly made false representations to obtain benefits. The court also found no merit in her challenge to the imposed penalty.

Workers' CompensationFraudFalse StatementsMisrepresentationWage Replacement BenefitsPermanent Total DisabilityPsychiatric HistoryMedical MisrepresentationAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-a
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suleman v. State of New York Department of Taxation & Finance

Petitioner, a probationary excise tax investigator, was terminated by Respondent after investigations revealed numerous discrepancies and false statements in his personnel records, including multiple names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and employment history, as well as tax evasion. Petitioner challenged the termination, alleging discrimination based on Palestinian ancestry and bad faith. The Supreme Court dismissed his application. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that while petitioner established a prima facie case of discrimination, Respondent provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that these reasons were a pretext for discrimination, as he did not deny the extensive false statements made to various government agencies.

Probationary EmployeeEmployment TerminationCPLR Article 78Discrimination ClaimPalestinian AncestryFalse StatementsMisrepresentationPersonnel RecordsTax EvasionPrima Facie Case
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States ex rel. Kirk v. Schindler Elevator Corp.

Relator Daniel Kirk alleges Schindler Elevator Corp. violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by submitting false VETS-100 reports, concealing non-compliance with the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA). The case has a complex procedural history, including appeals to the Second Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, which narrowed Kirk's claims. The current order addresses Schindler's renewed motion to dismiss and Kirk's motion to file a second amended complaint (SAC). The court grants Kirk's motion to amend, finding no bad faith, undue delay, or prejudice, and that the proposed amendments are not futile, specifically addressing timeliness, primary jurisdiction, collateral estoppel, plausibility, and Rule 9(b) particularity requirements. Consequently, Schindler's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint is dismissed as moot, and discovery is lifted.

False Claims ActQui Tam RelatorVEVRAA ComplianceVETS-100 ReportsMotion to AmendMotion to DismissRule 9(b) PleadingRelation Back DoctrinePrimary JurisdictionCollateral Estoppel
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. United Parcel Service

Plaintiff, a former United Parcel Service employee and union member, was discharged for alleged theft after being accused of stealing a package of watches. Although he was arrested, he was later acquitted of petit larceny. An arbitrator subsequently found his discharge was not for just cause and ordered his reinstatement with back pay and benefits. Following this, the plaintiff commenced an action against United Parcel Service for false imprisonment/unlawful arrest. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing preemption by the Labor Management Relations Act and the National Labor Relations Act, and sought to add affirmative defenses. Special Term denied summary judgment but granted leave to amend the answer. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding the tort claim was not preempted, but found that Special Term erred in refusing to dismiss the defendants' affirmative defenses regarding federal preemption and the exclusivity of Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

False ImprisonmentUnlawful ArrestLabor Management Relations Act PreemptionNational Labor Relations Act PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive Remedy ProvisionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTort Claim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Santos v. American Museum of Natural History

Guaquin Garcia died after a scaffold fall during renovations at a building leased by the American Museum of Natural History. His estate sued the Museum and the general contractor for wrongful death. The Museum moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked Labor Law liability as it didn't own, contract for, or supervise the work. The Supreme Court denied this motion, but on appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court found the Museum, as a lessee, was not liable under Labor Law § 240, having neither contracted for nor supervised the renovation work, and thus lacked authority over safety measures.

Wrongful DeathScaffold AccidentLabor Law Section 240Summary Judgment AppealPremises LiabilityLessee LiabilityRenovation ProjectWorksite SafetyAppellate CourtBuilding Owner Responsibility
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2004

Claim of Lopresti v. Washington Mills

A claimant appealed an amended decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, which disqualified him from wage replacement benefits for violating Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The claimant initially misrepresented how he sustained a knee injury, claiming he slipped on ice, but later admitted it was due to an altercation with a coworker. While a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found the injury compensable and no violation, the Board modified this, concluding the claimant knowingly made a false statement material to his claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the claimant's motivation to protect a coworker was a credibility issue for the Board to resolve. The court upheld the discretionary penalty of disqualification from wage replacement benefits, finding the Board's determination supported by substantial evidence.

False StatementFraudulent MisrepresentationWage Replacement DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate AffirmationClaimant CredibilityMateriality of FalsehoodKnee Injury ClaimWorkplace AltercationStatutory Violation § 114-a
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,126 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