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. 2022 NY Slip Op 01011
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2022

Hamm v. Review Assoc., LLC

The plaintiff, Peter Hamm, an employee, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while servicing a security system at premises owned by Review Associates, LLC and leased by Fresh Direct, LLC. He initiated a personal injury action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified this order, denying summary judgment for the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against both defendants due to triable issues of fact regarding whether the work constituted "repairs" or "routine maintenance." Additionally, the court denied summary judgment for the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Fresh Direct, LLC, as it failed to establish a lack of notice regarding the defective ladder. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against both defendants and the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Review Associates, LLC.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionDuty to Maintain Safe PremisesRoutine Maintenance vs. RepairDangerous Condition
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caruso v. Civilian Complaint Review Board

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by police officers in the City of New York to permanently enjoin the enforcement of section 440 of the New York City Charter, which established a new Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB). Petitioners argued that section 440 failed to protect their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, was unconstitutionally vague, and violated their contractual rights. The court held that use immunity automatically attaches by operation of law when public employees are compelled to testify under threat of dismissal, thereby safeguarding their Fifth Amendment rights without explicit statutory authorization. It further determined that the City Charter constituted a 'change in the law,' preventing any impairment of contractual rights. Consequently, the court denied injunctive relief and dismissed the petition.

Self-incriminationUse immunityFifth AmendmentCPLR Article 78Police misconductCivilian oversightConstitutional lawDue processCollective bargainingNew York City Charter
References
7
Case No. ADJ8897698
Regular
Feb 19, 2015

MICHAEL GIBSON vs. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the initial denial of the applicant's appeal concerning tinnitus masking treatment. The Board found that the Administrative Director's (AD) Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination was invalid because the reviewer failed to follow the statutorily mandated hierarchy of standards for assessing medical necessity. Specifically, the IMR reviewer improperly relied on Medicare guidelines without first considering peer-reviewed scientific and medical evidence, as required by Labor Code section 4610.5(c)(2). Consequently, the case was remanded to the AD for a new IMR by a different reviewer.

Independent Medical ReviewLabor Code section 4610.6(h)Tinnitus masking treatmentMedical necessityPlainly erroneous finding of factOrdinary knowledgeExpert opinionAdministrative DirectorUtilization ReviewSection 4610.5(c)(2) hierarchy
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07264 [202 AD3d 125]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2021

Siegel v. Snyder

This case addresses the quality-assurance privilege and the party-statement exception under New York's Education Law and Public Health Law, regarding the discoverability of medical peer-review meeting minutes. The plaintiff sought minutes from a Trauma Peer Review Committee concerning a decedent's treatment, to which defendants asserted privilege. The Appellate Division clarified that the burden lies with the party claiming privilege to prove that unidentified statements in the minutes were made by nonparties, thus ruling that statements with unidentified speakers are discoverable under the party-statement exception. However, the court also determined that references to future corrective actions in the minutes are protected from disclosure. The Supreme Court's order was modified to reflect these findings, affirming the discoverability of unidentified statements while granting a protective order for subsequent corrective action discussions.

Medical MalpracticeQuality Assurance PrivilegePeer ReviewParty Statement ExceptionEducation LawPublic Health LawDiscoveryConfidentialityHospital RecordsUnidentified Speaker
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 1987

McCaffrey v. Board of Estimate

The petitioners challenged a determination by the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, dated January 22, 1987, which approved a site in Long Island City for a residential shelter for homeless men. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed. The court found that the respondents complied with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), City Environmental Quality Review regulations, and the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). The respondents had identified environmental concerns, taken a 'hard look,' and provided a 'reasoned elaboration' for their determination. The petitioners' argument that ULURP procedures needed to be redone due to an expired lease option was deemed without merit.

Environmental ReviewHomeless ShelterSite ApprovalLand UseCPLR Article 78SEQRAULURPGovernment DecisionAppellate CourtProcedural Compliance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Broomfield v. Roosevelt Hotel Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying the employer’s request for full Board review. The employer had repeatedly failed to appear at hearings regarding a discrimination complaint filed by the claimant, leading the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) to find discrimination. The employer’s subsequent untimely appeal to a Board panel was denied for lack of good cause. The employer then sought full Board review, which was also denied. The court affirmed the denial of full Board review, finding no abuse of discretion by the Board panel, as their decision was unanimous and based on a full consideration of the matter.

DiscriminationWorkers' Compensation BoardUntimely AppealFull Board ReviewAbuse of DiscretionAdjournmentsFailure to AppearJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionWCLJ Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1976

In re Louis F.

This proceeding was initiated by foster parents under Social Services Law section 392 to review the foster care status of the child Louis F., aiming to free him for adoption. Respondents, the Department of Social Services, Catholic Home Bureau, and the natural mother, sought to continue foster care, with the agency planning for the child's discharge to the natural mother. The foster parents moved for prehearing disclosure of various records related to the child and his natural parents, which the Family Court denied for lack of sufficient necessity. The Appellate Division affirmed this denial. The court reiterated that while foster parents, as parties in a foster care review, may obtain disclosure upon a proper showing of necessity coupled with in camera viewing by the Family Court, in this instance, after its own appellate in camera review, it found no abuse of discretion in the Family Court's decision.

Foster CareChild WelfareSocial Services LawDisclosureIn Camera InspectionFamily CourtAppellate ReviewBest Interest of the ChildParental RightsAdoption Proceedings
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coratti v. Jon Josef Hair & Colour Group

The Workers' Compensation Board denied a claimant's motion to preclude a workers’ compensation carrier’s consultant report, which was based solely on a review of medical records, not an independent medical examination (IME). The claimant argued non-compliance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 137 (1) (b), a provision requiring notice if an IME is performed. The Board concluded the statute does not apply to records-review-only reports. An appellate court affirmed, holding that the plain language of § 137 (1) (b) explicitly refers to practitioners who have performed or will perform an IME, thereby excluding those who solely review records. The court emphasized that statutory interpretation must adhere to plain language, leaving policy arguments to the Legislature.

IME reportsrecords reviewWorkers' Compensation Lawstatutory interpretationpreclusion motioncausationoccupational illnessdue processlegislative intent
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1990

North Fork Environmental Council, Inc. v. Janoski

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Town Board of Riverhead's determination to grant a special permit for a condominium development to Mill Pound Commons. The petitioner argued that the environmental impact statements were defective because the Town Board failed to consider the cumulative environmental effects of the project with other proposed projects in the Saw Mill Creek basin and did not consider archaeological impacts. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, affirmed the Town Board's decision, finding that the projects were not "reasonably related" for a mandatory cumulative impact review and that archaeological impacts were not raised or supported during the review process. The court emphasized that a Critical Environmental Area designation alone does not mandate a cohesive framework for cumulative impact review and that new issues cannot be raised after the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement process.

Environmental Impact StatementSEQRACumulative Impact ReviewSpecial PermitCondominium UseTown Board DeterminationCritical Environmental AreaArchaeological ResourcesPublic CommentCPLR Article 78
References
4
Case No. 78107628
Regular Panel Decision

Stojanov v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Claimant appealed two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board, filed July 10, 2008, which ruled that his applications for review were untimely. These claims stemmed from 1981 work-related accidents, reopened in 2008 with liability transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied compensation in May 2008, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 123. The Board found claimant's applications for review, mailed on the 30th day but received later, were untimely. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, emphasizing that Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 requires filing within 30 days, not just mailing.

timelinessSpecial FundBoard reviewappealWCLJ decisionfiling deadlinemailed applicationamended decisionstatutory interpretationadministrative review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,937 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