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. 2014-773 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2016

Laga v. Foremost Signature Ins. Co.

In this action, provider Adelaida M. Laga, as assignee of Jenny Jimenez, sought assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Foremost Signature Insurance Company. The Civil Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the defendant failed to legally establish that the fees charged exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the Civil Court's order and denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, siding with the plaintiff's argument.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate reviewInsurance claimMedical providerAssigneeCivil CourtAppellate TermDenial of benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Yovanny L.

This case addresses the accuracy of court interpreter translations in a juvenile delinquency proceeding. The Assistant Corporation Counsel moved to strike the complainant's testimony, alleging significant errors by the court-appointed Mandarin interpreter. After conducting a hearing and considering testimony from both the Assistant Corporation Counsel and the interpreter, the court acknowledged that some minor errors in translation and interpreter conduct occurred. However, the court ultimately found these errors to be isolated instances and not sufficiently serious or pervasive to cause major prejudice to any party. Consequently, the drastic remedy of striking the testimony and starting anew was denied, and the trial was ordered to resume with a different Mandarin interpreter.

Juvenile DelinquencyCourt InterpretersTranslation AccuracyDue Process RightsEvidentiary MotionTestimony AdmissibilityMandarin LanguageFamily Court ProcedureJudicial ReviewProcedural Errors
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00229
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

Matter of Patsis (Legal Interpreting Servs., Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case concerns an appeal by Legal Interpreting Services, Inc. (LIS) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had ruled that Louiza Patsis, a linguist working for LIS, was an employee and that LIS was liable for unemployment insurance contributions. LIS contended that Patsis was an independent contractor and challenged the Board's adherence to Department of Labor guidelines. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the finding of an employment relationship. The court noted the control LIS exercised over its linguists through a written agreement and job assignments, and found no inconsistency with the Department of Labor guidelines.

unemployment insuranceemployment relationshipindependent contractorappellate divisionlabor lawunemployment benefitsstatutory interpretationsubstantial evidenceadministrative reviewlegal interpreting
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00228 [201 AD3d 1164]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

Matter of Debora (Legal Interpreting Servs., Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

This case concerns an appeal by Legal Interpreting Services, Inc. (LIS) from decisions by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board determined that Fausto Debora, a linguist, was an employee of LIS and that LIS was liable for unemployment insurance contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that substantial evidence supported the existence of an employment relationship. The court noted that LIS exercised sufficient control over its linguists by screening qualifications, negotiating pay, and assigning jobs, despite some flexibility offered to the linguists. The decision also dismissed LIS's argument regarding Department of Labor guidelines, stating no inconsistency was found with established common-law tests for employment.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceLinguist ServicesControl TestDepartment of Labor GuidelinesEmployer LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Korman v. Sachs

This case concerns an appeal challenging the invalidation of Lorraine Backal's designating petition for Judge of the Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County. The Supreme Court initially ruled her petition invalid, citing fewer than the required 5,000 signatures under Election Law § 6-136 (2) (b). On appeal, while the court upheld the factual finding of insufficient signatures, it deemed the 5,000-signature requirement for Bronx County unconstitutional. The court found this disparity, compared to 2,000 signatures for counties of similar population outside New York City, violated the Equal Protection Clause. Consequently, the judgment invalidating Backal's petition was reversed, and the Board of Elections was directed to place her name on the ballot.

Election LawDesignating PetitionsConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionBallot AccessSignature RequirementsJudicial ElectionsNew York StateAppellate ReviewSurrogate's Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Directors of Rough Riders Landing Homeowners Ass'n v. Signature Group, LLC

Plaintiffs, an association and condominium boards in Montauk, New York, sued Signature Group, LLC and Selective Insurance Company of America to recover overpaid premiums on a Standard Flood Insurance Policy. The action was originally filed in state court and subsequently removed to federal court by the defendants. Plaintiffs moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing a lack of federal jurisdiction. The District Court, however, denied the motion, finding that federal question jurisdiction exists because the claims for refund of SFIP premiums implicate significant federal issues and federal funds, requiring uniform interpretation of the National Flood Insurance Program's manual.

Flood insuranceNational Flood Insurance ProgramNFIPStandard Flood Insurance PolicySFIPWrite-Your-Own ProgramWYOPFEMAFederal Emergency Management AgencyInsurance premiums
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moskowitz v. Board of Elections

The petitioner, an orthodox observer of Jewish Sabbaths and religious holidays, sought an order to compel the Board of Elections of the City of New York to accept signatures for his independent nominating petition after the statutory deadline of September 21, 1966. He argued that religious observances prevented him and his campaign workers from collecting signatures for 8 days, requesting additional time. The court found this argument "specious," noting that 42 days were allotted, and the petitioner only obtained 99 signatures in the remaining 32 days. The petitioner's secondary argument, challenging the constitutionality of requiring 3,000 signatures for independent candidates versus 750 for party candidates, was also rejected, citing prior case law that upheld the distinction. Consequently, the court denied the application and dismissed the petition.

Election LawIndependent CandidateNominating PetitionsSignature RequirementsReligious ObservanceStatutory DeadlinesConstitutional ChallengeJudicial DiscretionCandidate EligibilityBoard of Elections
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc. v. State

The case concerns a challenge by home care service agencies and a trade association (petitioners) to New York's Wage Parity Law (Public Health Law § 3614-c). This law conditions Medicaid reimbursement for home health care services in the metropolitan New York area on agencies paying home care aides a minimum wage, determined by reference to New York City's Living Wage Law. Petitioners argued the law was unconstitutional due to improper delegation of legislative authority, violation of the "incorporation by reference" clause, and violation of home rule provisions. They also challenged the Department of Health's (DOH) interpretation of "total compensation." The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the respondents (DOH), and the appellate court affirmed, finding no improper delegation, no violation of the incorporation by reference clause, home rule provisions inapplicable as Medicaid is a state concern, and DOH's interpretation of "total compensation" to be rational.

Wage Parity LawHome Health Care ServicesMedicaid ReimbursementConstitutional LawLegislative AuthorityNew York City Living Wage LawHome RuleDue ProcessDepartment of HealthStatutory Interpretation
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amedore v. Peterson

Judge Graffeo dissents from a decision concerning the interpretation of New York Election Law § 11-302, which governs the use of special ballots by poll workers. The dissent argues that the statute's provisions, stating that special ballots should be provided "not earlier than two weeks before the election" and cast "not later than the close of the polls on election day," imply a requirement that these ballots also be cast no earlier than two weeks prior to the election. The Appellate Division, however, concluded there was no violation when ballots were both distributed and cast more than two weeks before the election, allowing them to be canvassed. Graffeo contends that this interpretation warrants further appellate review due to conflicting lower court conclusions and the importance of strict compliance with election procedures, referencing previous rulings on absentee balloting.

Statutory InterpretationElection LawSpecial BallotsPoll WorkersVoting ProceduresBallot CanvassingAppellate ReviewStrict ComplianceDissenting OpinionNew York Election Law
References
2
Case No. 06 Civ. 3994(DC)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2007

BRENTWOOD PAIN & REHABILITATION SERV. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

The case examines whether Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) charges fall under the same discounted fee schedule rules as x-rays for multiple body parts under New York's no-fault auto insurance law. Plaintiffs, MRI service providers, contested the application of Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) Radiology Ground Rule 3 to MRIs, arguing the rule specifically mentions only x-rays. Defendant insurance companies, supported by interpretations from the Department of Insurance (DOI) and WCB, asserted the rule's applicability to MRIs. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to the insurers, deferring to the agencies' "rational" and "reasonable" interpretation. The court concluded that applying the discount rule to MRIs aligns with the No-Fault Law's objectives to control costs and prevent fraud, thus denying the providers' motions.

No-Fault InsuranceMRIX-rayFee ScheduleRadiologyWorkers' Compensation BoardDepartment of InsuranceAgency DeferenceStatutory InterpretationSummary Judgment
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 1,086 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