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. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colindres v. Carpenito

Plaintiff Rochelle Colindres sought a protective order to deny defendants' demand for a medical report from her former treating psychologist, Diane Henry, or alternatively, relief from compliance with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts § 202.17(b)(1). Colindres argued that the defendants waived their right to the report as the independent medical examination (IME) already occurred, and that obtaining the report would be an undue hardship since Henry ceased treatment due to Colindres' attendance issues. Defendants Mario Carpenito, Jr., City of White Plains, and White Plains Parking Department opposed, asserting that the report was necessary to clarify alleged injuries, prepare for cross-examination, and facilitate settlement, highlighting Colindres' complex medical history predating the incident. The court denied both branches of Colindres' motion, finding that the rule applies broadly to personal injury actions, defendants did not waive their entitlement, and Colindres failed to prove it was impossible to obtain the report. The court ordered Colindres to exchange a compliant medical report from Diane Henry by March 27, 2017.

protective ordermedical report disclosurediscovery disputepsychological treatmentindependent medical examinationCPLR 310322 NYCRR 202.17waiver of discoveryundue hardshippersonal injury damages
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernekes v. Catskill Regional Medical Center

Plaintiff initiated an action alleging assault by a fellow patient, 'John Doe,' at Catskill Regional Medical Center (CRMC). The core dispute involved plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, specifically an incident report authored by nurse Barbara Blume and a deposition of incident coordinator Ann Korabik. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion, ordering the disclosure of the report and Korabik's deposition. CRMC appealed, asserting the incident report was privileged under Public Health Law § 2805-Z and that this privilege was not waived by an employee's review. The appellate court affirmed the order for Korabik's deposition but reversed the disclosure of Blume's incident report, ruling that internal review did not constitute a waiver of privilege. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for an in camera review to determine the report's privilege status under Public Health Law § 2805-Z.

DiscoveryIncident ReportMedical Records PrivilegePublic Health LawWaiver of PrivilegeIn Camera ReviewHospital LiabilityAssaultPatient SafetyCivil Procedure
References
20
Case No. 15-0129
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2014

Baltasar D. Cruz v. James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman D/B/A Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen

This case involves a libel lawsuit filed by Baltasar D. Cruz against James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report (BOR), and Katherine Haenschen. The lawsuit stemmed from a statement in an article posted on the BOR website by Van Sickle regarding Cruz, who was a judicial candidate. The trial court initially granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and awarded attorney's fees to all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit and the award of attorney's fees to James Van Sickle. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney's fees to Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen, ruling that as they were represented pro bono, they did not 'incur' attorney's fees as required by the TCPA.

LibelDefamationTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPPro Bono RepresentationAttorney's FeesJudicial CandidatePublic OfficialFreedom of SpeechStatutory Interpretation
References
83
Case No. 2020-02-0046
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2022

Tedford, Daniel v. Energy Savers, LLC

The employee, an insulation installer, reported two incidents alleging injuries to his shoulders and neck. The employer initiated benefits after the second reported incident but denied surgery, arguing the need stemmed from the first, unreported incident, which was potentially outside the limitations period. The employee asserted the discovery rule and the employer's voluntary payment of benefits tolled the statute of limitations. The trial court declined to order the sought benefits and found insufficient information to address the limitations period for the first incident. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order and remanded the case, agreeing that it was the trial court's role to initially determine the applicability of the discovery rule.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleExpedited HearingShoulder InjuryNeck InjuryLabral TearCausationMedical OpinionVoluntary Payment of Benefits
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hilda B. v. New York City Housing Authority

Petitioners, Hilda B. and her infant, sought leave to file a late notice of claim against the New York City Housing Authority after Hilda B. was sexually assaulted in her apartment building, and her infant was dropped during the incident. The building reportedly lacked working locks, allowing the perpetrator entry. The incident was reported to management and Housing Police, and a social worker also informed the Housing Authority. Despite this, a formal notice of claim was filed approximately 2.5 months beyond the statutory 90-day period. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision, granting petitioners' motion based on evidence of Hilda B.'s psychological inability to seek timely legal advice and the respondent's actual notice of the incident, with no showing of prejudice.

sexual assaultlate notice of claimGeneral Municipal Lawpsychological distresshousing authority negligencestatutory notice periodactual noticeappellate reversalpersonal injurypremises liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 1965

Rivera v. Hellman

This case involves a motion to confirm a Special Referee's report concerning the amounts and priorities of various liens. The Special Referee conducted a hearing and reported on claims from an attorney for the plaintiff ($793.50), Roosevelt Hospital ($846.53), and the Millinery Health Fund ($641.00, later adjusted to $528). The report established the amounts of each lien and recommended priorities, placing the attorney's lien first, followed by the hospital lien (except for a $12 outpatient service), and then the compensation lien. The court concurred with the Special Referee's report and recommendations, granting the motion to confirm.

Lien PriorityAttorney's LienHospital LienDisability BenefitsWorkmen's Compensation LawSpecial Referee ReportMotion GrantedNew York Supreme CourtLien LawMotion Practice
References
2
Case No. ADJ7811956
Regular
Oct 18, 2011

LORI BOZZO vs. SAVEMART, PEGASUS

Applicant petitioned for disqualification of the WCJ, alleging enmity and bias from the attorney due to an incident on September 1, 2011. The WCJ's report stated the incident would not prejudice the attorney or clients, and all decisions are based on evidence. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding no reason to doubt the absence of bias. Therefore, the petition for disqualification was denied.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law Judgeenmity or biasmandatory settlement conferencesReport and Recommendationevidence presentedday in Courtno bias or enmityDENIED
References
0
Case No. ADJ4237156
Regular
Nov 15, 2011

CON HOWE vs. AMERIGAS by SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This case involves an applicant's petition to disqualify a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) due to alleged bias stemming from a prior incident. The applicant's attorney claimed the WCJ harbored enmity and would prejudice his clients. The WCJ, in his report, stated the incident would not affect his impartiality and all cases are decided on evidence. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report and denied the disqualification petition, finding no reason to doubt the WCJ's impartiality.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJ BiasEnmityMandatory Settlement ConferencesReport and RecommendationEvidence-based DecisionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeApplicant's AttorneyCase ADJ4237156
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 7,005 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