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

Main Evaluations, Inc. v. State

The claimant, Main Medical Evaluations, entered into contracts with the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) to perform consultative medical evaluations. OTDA terminated these contracts, alleging the claimant failed to disclose professional disciplinary proceedings against its chief medical officer, Arvinder Sachdev, and submitted false information during the bidding process. Following the dismissal of its claim in the Court of Claims, the claimant appealed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that OTDA had legitimate grounds for termination due to the claimant's misrepresentations and failure to report substantial contract-related issues concerning Sachdev's integral role. Additionally, the court rejected the claimant's equal protection argument, finding no evidence of selective enforcement based on impermissible considerations.

Contract TerminationProfessional MisconductFalse RepresentationEqual ProtectionGovernment ContractsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractMedical LicensingAdministrative ProceedingsDue Diligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2004

In re Human Performance, Inc.

Human Performance, Inc., doing business as Woodstock Spa & Wellness, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had assessed Human Performance, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions for massage therapists and aestheticians, classifying them as employees. Woodstock argued they were not employees. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that Woodstock maintained control over important aspects of the therapists' work, including setting fees, scheduling services, handling complaints, providing workers’ compensation coverage, and supplying the workspace, equipment, and supplies.

Unemployment InsuranceMassage TherapistsAestheticiansEmployer-Employee RelationshipWellness CenterDay SpaIndependent ContractorWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor LawAppeal Board Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, Inc.

This case is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court in Tioga County, which granted defendants' motions to set aside a $350,000 jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and ordered a new trial. The trial court's decision to grant a new trial was affirmed by the appellate court, acknowledging the trial court's discretion in evaluating errors. The basis for setting aside the verdict included the plaintiff's attorney's improper introduction of new medical evidence (CAT scan and X-rays) shortly before trial, without proper notice, and the subsequent testimony of Dr. Leonard J. Barron based on this evidence. Additionally, plaintiff's attorney engaged in prejudicial tactics during summation, attacking the reliability of defendants' medical expert and injecting speculative arguments about inflation and improper references to workers' compensation reimbursement. These combined errors led the trial court, and subsequently the appellate court, to conclude that defendants were denied a fair trial, thus justifying a new trial on damages.

Appeal ProcedureNew TrialEvidentiary RulingsDiscovery AbuseMedical Expert TestimonyJury Verdict Set AsideAttorney MisconductPrejudicial ErrorsDamages DeterminationFair Trial
References
6
Case No. 2013-1461 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2016

Performance Plus Med., P.C. v. Nationwide Ins.

This case involves an appeal by Performance Plus Medical, P.C., acting as an assignee, against Nationwide Ins. The plaintiff sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The Civil Court had previously granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The Appellate Term affirmed this order, ruling that the defendant's timely verification request tolled the insurer's time to pay or deny the claim, thus rendering the plaintiff's action premature due to a failure to respond to the request. Additionally, the court found that the defendant had successfully demonstrated a prima facie case for denying claims related to the first cause of action based on the workers' compensation fee schedule, which the plaintiff failed to rebut.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentVerification requestInsurer's time to payPremature actionWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate reviewCivil Court orderFirst-party benefitsAssigned claims
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

55th Management Corp. v. Goldman

This case addresses whether an out-of-court statement made to a court evaluator in an Article 81 guardianship proceeding is protected by absolute privilege, thereby defeating a defamation claim. The defendant, a tenant, made allegedly defamatory remarks about a landlord to a court evaluator during the evaluator's investigation for a guardianship proceeding. The court considered if the remarks were pertinent, if a statement to a court evaluator is considered part of a judicial proceeding, and if the speaker had standing. The court found the remarks pertinent, extended the absolute privilege to statements made to court evaluators given their role as court agents, and affirmed the defendant's standing as a potential witness. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was granted.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsCourt EvaluatorGuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Tenant-Landlord DisputeMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Scope of Privilege
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Nunez v. White

Petitioner, a prison inmate at Clinton County Correctional Facility, filed a grievance concerning tailor shop conditions, including an alleged unwritten policy on performance evaluations, lack of sewing machine safety guards, and removal of seat cushions. The Central Office Review Committee (CORC) largely denied the grievance. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal. The appellate court affirmed CORC's rational determination regarding performance evaluations and sewing machine safety. However, it modified the judgment, remitting the part of the petition concerning the seat cushion procedure to CORC for further adjudication, as that aspect of the grievance had not been fully addressed.

inmate grievanceprison conditionsperformance evaluationtailor shopsewing machine safetyseat cushion policyadministrative exhaustionCPLR article 78Central Office Review Committeeremittal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2008

Siddiqi v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Khursheed Siddiqi, a medical technologist, sued New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation (HHC) alleging discrimination based on race, age, religion, and national origin. Claims included violations of federal and state laws for involuntary transfer, denial of promotion, refusal of religious holidays, negative performance evaluations, and a hostile work environment. The court granted HHC's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. Age discrimination and several time-barred federal claims were dismissed. The court allowed a claim for religious discrimination regarding unequal holiday leave and a hostile work environment claim to proceed, but dismissed retaliation claims for failure to promote and performance evaluations.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentPerformance EvaluationsFailure to PromoteStatute of Limitations
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2004

Scafidi v. Baldwin Union Free School District

Plaintiff Maryann Scafidi filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC against the Baldwin Union Free School District, alleging disability discrimination and subsequent retaliation. She sought to amend her complaint to include various acts of alleged retaliation, such as office relocations, increased work responsibilities, denial of clerical staff access, a negative performance evaluation, and excessive scrutiny. The District opposed the motion, arguing that the proposed amendments were futile as the alleged acts did not constitute adverse employment actions. The Court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend in part, allowing claims related to office relocations and denial of clerical staff access to proceed as potential adverse employment actions. However, claims regarding excessive scrutiny, negative performance evaluations, and other minor complaints were denied, as they were deemed insufficient to meet the standard of an adverse employment action.

DiscriminationDisabilityRetaliationAmericans with Disabilities ActADAEmployment LawMotion to Amend ComplaintAdverse Employment ActionOffice RelocationPerformance Evaluation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kanhoye v. Altana Inc.

Plaintiff Rohindranath Kanhoye sued Altana, Inc. and several individuals for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, and New York State Human Rights Law. Kanhoye alleged retaliation after complaining about his pay and performance evaluations, leading to a "Final Warning" and eventual termination. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions and seeking to limit remedies based on after-acquired evidence of Kanhoye's alleged misconduct. The Court granted partial summary judgment to defendants, dismissing claims related to the 2004 performance evaluation, gender discrimination, and tortious interference with contractual relations. However, the Court denied summary judgment on retaliation claims concerning the final warning and termination, as well as on the after-acquired evidence defense, citing disputed material facts requiring a jury's resolution.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentGender DiscriminationEqual Pay ActNew York Human Rights LawTortious InterferenceAfter-Acquired EvidencePretextMcDonnell-Douglas Burden-Shifting
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of the Mosaic & Terrazzo Welfare, Pension, Annuity & Vacation Funds v. High Performance Floors, Inc.

Plaintiffs, trustees of various employee benefit funds, brought this action under ERISA and LMRA to collect employer contributions from defendants HPF, Inc. and High Performance Floors, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that HPF was an alter ego of, or single employer with, High Performance, aiming to evade obligations under a collective bargaining agreement. Following a non-jury trial, U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold concluded that High Performance and HPF were indeed alter egos and constituted a single employer. This determination was based on compelling evidence of shared management, employees, operations, equipment, and a common business purpose, coupled with an intent to circumvent union obligations. Consequently, the court found the defendants jointly and severally liable for the unpaid contributions.

Alter Ego DoctrineSingle Employer DoctrineERISA EnforcementLMRA LitigationUnpaid Employer ContributionsCollective Bargaining Agreement BreachEmployee Benefit Fund ProtectionCorporate DisregardLabor Relations LawJoint and Several Liability
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 3,075 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