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
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bub v. Rockstone Capital, LLC

Keith Bub appealed an order from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, which denied his discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A). The Bankruptcy Court found that Bub had made false and fraudulent statements concerning his income, expenses, and his company's assets and liabilities, intending to deceive both creditors and the court. Bub challenged these findings, arguing for reversal or remand, asserting that the evidence was misinterpreted and insufficient to prove falsehoods or intent to deceive. Appellee Rockstone Capital, LLC, countered that Bub had engaged in a prolonged pattern of asset hiding and making false statements under oath. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision, concluding that the finding of knowingly made material false statements with fraudulent intent, or at least reckless disregard for the truth, was not clearly erroneous.

Bankruptcy DischargeFalse OathFraudulent IntentDebtor-Creditor RelationsFinancial MisrepresentationCorporate FormalityJudicial ReviewChapter 7 BankruptcyAsset ConcealmentIncome Understatement
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castillo v. Casado (In Re Casado)

Herman and Janet Castillo, the Plaintiffs, initiated an adversary proceeding to prevent the discharge of the Debtor, Aníbal Casado, M.D., under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A). They alleged that the Debtor made false statements in his bankruptcy schedules by misrepresenting accounts receivable, failing to list household goods, and omitting several pending lawsuits. The Court found compelling evidence that the Debtor made material false oaths and exhibited a pattern of deceit, primarily to avoid paying the Castillos' judgment. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Debtor knowingly made false statements and, therefore, his discharge will be denied.

Bankruptcy FraudFalse OathsDischarge DenialAccounts Receivable UnderstatementUndisclosed AssetsUndisclosed LawsuitsReckless IndifferenceChapter 7 BankruptcyCreditor RightsMedical Malpractice Judgment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dory v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

Claimant, receiving workers' compensation for a permanent partial disability from back injuries, was accused by the employer's carrier of violating Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. This accusation stemmed from an investigator observing claimant using a squat press machine, despite claimant's testimony in November 2006 denying such activity. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found that the employer and carrier failed to prove claimant knowingly made a false statement or misrepresentation of a material fact. The Board credited claimant's explanation that he did not understand "squat pressing" to include using the machine he utilized. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimant did not knowingly make a false statement.

Workers' CompensationFalse StatementMisrepresentationBenefits DisqualificationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewCredibilitySquat Press MachineBack InjuryEmployer's Carrier
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Engoltz v. Stewart's Ice Cream

The case revolves around a claimant residing in Israel who faced allegations of making false statements to receive workers' compensation benefits. The employer's risk management company issued a questionnaire inquiring solely about "earnings," to which the claimant responded in the negative. This response did not disclose unpaid volunteer activities supporting competitive swimming in Israel, including work for a corporation formed to import swimming gear. However, during a subsequent hearing, the claimant was fully transparent about these activities, affirming no compensation was received and substantiating this with tax returns. The court found no evidence that the claimant knowingly made a false statement or representation regarding a material fact under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (1), emphasizing the claimant's candor at the hearing. Consequently, the lower decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationFalse StatementMisrepresentationEarningsQuestionnaireCandorRemittalIsrael ActivitiesUnpaid WorkVolunteer Work
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees v. May Department Stores Co.

The plaintiffs, Union of Needle-trades, Industrial and Textile Workers (UNITE) and others, sued May Department Stores Company (May) alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC rules related to proxy solicitations. UNITE sought relief claiming May improperly exercised discretionary voting authority and made false or misleading statements in its proxy materials concerning an 'anti-poison pill proposal'. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity. The court granted May's motion, concluding that May lawfully exercised its discretionary authority under SEC Rule 14a-4(c)(1) and that UNITE failed to allege any actionable false or misleading statements under SEC Rule 14a-9. The complaint was dismissed.

Securities LawProxy SolicitationShareholder RightsMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Discretionary AuthorityMisleading StatementsSecurities Exchange ActSEC Rules
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Soika

This case concerns Household Finance Corporation's petition to review a Referee in Bankruptcy's order regarding the nondischargeability of a prebankruptcy debt. The bankrupt provided false financial statements to Household Finance Corp. and Postal Finance Co., omitting significant existing indebtedness. The Referee found these statements to be materially false, made with intent to deceive, and relied upon by the creditors, resulting in the bankrupt receiving additional funds. The Referee determined the nondischargeable liability for Household Finance Corp. to be $75.00, which was challenged by Household Finance, seeking $1,400.00. The court affirmed the Referee's decision, concluding that the 1960 amendment to the Bankruptcy Act § 17(a)(2) does not impose a special penalty beyond the New York 'actual pecuniary loss' rule for fraud, thus construing exceptions to discharge strictly in favor of the bankrupt.

BankruptcyNondischargeable DebtFalse Financial StatementFraudDamagesBankruptcy ActCreditor RightsDebtor ProtectionPecuniary LossAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Losurdo v. Asbestos Free, Inc.

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether Workers’ Compensation Law section 114-a (1) authorizes the Workers’ Compensation Board to disqualify a claimant from receiving wage replacement benefits even when the forfeited compensation is not "directly attributable" to a false statement. The court held that while the mandatory penalty requires a direct link, the Board possesses discretionary power to impose disqualification, which can include forfeiture of all or a portion of benefits, regardless of whether the false statement enabled the claimant to receive compensation. The court defined "material fact" broadly as significant or essential to the issue at hand. In the cases of James Losurdo and Florencia Machado, where the Board had imposed disqualifications for misrepresentations, the court reversed and remitted the matters. It directed the Board to clarify whether mandatory or discretionary penalties were applied and to provide an explanation for the proportionality of any disqualification imposed under its discretionary power.

Workers' Compensation LawFraudWage Replacement BenefitsMaterial FactDisqualificationDiscretionary PenaltyMandatory PenaltyApportionmentPreexisting InjurySurveillance
References
11
Case No. G107 435
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2023

Matter of Marku v. ABM Industries

This case concerns the claim of Denise Perry under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) previously found that the employer, Adventist Home Care, established a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by the claimant for willfully making false statements to obtain benefits. Consequently, the WCLJ disallowed indemnity benefits and imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties. A Board Panel decision filed on February 17, 2022, affirmed the WCLJ's findings. The claimant subsequently filed an application for reconsideration on March 18, 2022, which the Board Panel reviewed. After considering the claimant’s arguments, the Board Panel determined that the application did not raise new issues or present new material evidence, nor did it demonstrate an erroneous statement of material fact or law in the prior decision. Therefore, the Board Panel, by a majority vote, affirmed its prior decision.

Workers' Compensation FraudFalse RepresentationIndemnity Benefits DisallowanceWCL § 114-a PenaltyApplication for Reconsideration DeniedBoard Panel AffirmationWillful MisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation Law Judge DecisionEmployer Established Violation
References
0
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,243 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