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

Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed by former employees (Plaintiffs) against James W. Giddens, as SIPA Trustee for MF Global Inc., and Louis J. Freeh, as Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., MF Global Finance USA, Inc., and MF Global Holdings USA, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the federal WARN Act and the New York WARN Act due to employment termination without sufficient notice. The Court granted the SIPA Trustee's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding the "liquidating fiduciary" principle applicable to MFGI as its statutory purpose was liquidation. However, the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice and with leave to amend, as the factual record did not conclusively establish that the Chapter 11 Debtors were solely liquidating at the time of layoffs, and the complaint was otherwise deficient. Claims for vacation pay and unpaid wages were dismissed without prejudice to be handled in the claims allowance process.

WARN ActNew York WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffsPlant ClosingsBankruptcy ProceedingsCorporate LiquidationChapter 11 ReorganizationSIPA TrusteeLiquidating Fiduciary Principle
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clear Water Psychological Services PC v. American Transit Insurance Co.

Plaintiff Clear Water Psychological Services PC sought no-fault benefits from defendant American Transit Insurance Company. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved for a 90-day stay, arguing that the assignor, Oshane Crooks, was acting as an employee at the time of the November 10, 2014 automobile accident, falling under Workers’ Compensation Board jurisdiction. A key issue was the admissibility of an uncertified police accident report (MV-104AN) which suggested the assignor was driving a taxi. The court ruled the uncertified report inadmissible under CPLR 4518 (c) for authentication reasons, despite the officer's personal observations. However, acknowledging the unresolved factual question of the assignor’s employment status and the Workers’ Compensation Board's primary jurisdiction, the court granted the defendant’s motion, staying the action for 90 days for a Workers’ Compensation Law applicability determination.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentStay of actionWorkers' CompensationPolice accident reportAdmissibility of evidenceCPLR 4518Vehicle and Traffic LawPrimary jurisdictionEmployment status
References
12
Case No. 2015-455 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

This case involves Metro Psychological Services, P.C., as an assignee, seeking first-party no-fault benefits from Travelers Property & Casualty Insurance Company. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the assignor's injuries occurred during employment, which would make workers' compensation benefits applicable. The Civil Court denied the defendant's motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Term reversed this order, concluding there was an unresolved issue as to whether the plaintiff's assignor was acting in the course of employment at the time of the accident. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Civil Court to be held in abeyance, pending a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding the parties' rights under the Workers' Compensation Law, underscoring the Board's primary jurisdiction in such matters.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAbeyanceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeMedical ProviderAssigneeCourse of Employment
References
9
Case No. 11 CIV. 0377(CM)
Regular Panel Decision

Pippins v. KPMG LLP

This case concerns a decision granting Defendant KPMG LLP's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims with prejudice and their New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs, current and former Audit Associates at KPMG, alleged that KPMG violated overtime pay requirements by classifying them as exempt. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, determined that Audit Associates qualify as "learned professionals" under the FLSA exemption. This conclusion was based on their specialized academic training, customary CPA-eligibility, and the requirement for them to exercise discretion and judgment in performing audit procedures, despite some routine tasks and supervision. The court rejected Plaintiffs' arguments that their work was purely rote and found their duties essential to the accounting profession, thus exempting them from FLSA overtime requirements.

FLSANew York Labor LawLearned Professional ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionAudit AssociatesKPMGOvertime PaySummary JudgmentAccounting StandardsCPA Eligibility
References
39
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04626 [197 AD3d 518]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2021

D. S. v. Positive Behavior Support Consulting & Psychological Resources, P.C.

This case involves an appeal by the Port Jefferson School District from an order denying its motion to dismiss a personal injury complaint. The infant plaintiff, a special education student, was allegedly injured by a therapist, Vito Silecchia, during a behavioral therapy session. The plaintiffs sued the School District, among others, alleging Silecchia was an employee or agent. The District contended Silecchia was an independent contractor retained through Positive Behavior Support Consulting and Psychological Resources, P.C. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the dismissal motion, stating that the complaint adequately stated a cause of action and that documentary evidence did not conclusively establish an independent contractor relationship, given provisions in the agreement suggesting the District maintained some control over the services.

Personal InjuryRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewVicarious LiabilitySchool District LiabilitySpecial EducationTherapist NegligenceCPLR 3211 (a) (1)
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valley Psychological, P.C. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

Plaintiff, Valley Psychological, P.C., provided psychological services to a woman involved in a motor vehicle accident, with claims assigned to plaintiff and covered by defendant, Liberty Mutual Insurance. Defendant denied these claims more than 30 days after receipt, leading plaintiff to file a commercial claim. Defendant asserted a provider fraud defense, alleging improper supervision by plaintiff's principal psychologist. Both City Court and County Court dismissed the claim based on the fraud defense, ruling that the untimely denial did not preclude this defense. However, this Court reversed, holding that defendant's untimely denial did preclude the fraud defense, as it pertained to excessive treatment rather than a strict lack of coverage. The matter was remitted to the City Court of the City of Albany to determine the judgment amount in plaintiff's favor.

no-fault insuranceuntimely denialfraud defensemedical services providerpreclusion doctrinelack of coverageexcessive treatmentworkers' compensation schedulescommercial claimappellate review
References
8
Case No. ADJ6618521
Regular
Sep 15, 2015

VICENTE LOPEZ vs. CHEMTEX PRINT USA, ENDURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior Findings and Award, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Board found that while the applicant's claim for psychological injury was initially dismissed without prejudice, denying reopening based on res judicata was an error. The Board determined that the applicant's psychological complaints, though lacking substantial evidence from the current medical reports, warrant further development of the record. This includes obtaining updated reports from the treating physician regarding the applicant's psyche and neurologic complaints.

Petition to ReopenFindings and AwardStipulations and AwardDismissed Without PrejudiceRes JudicataFraudulent MisrepresentationDeveloping the RecordSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionPrimary Treating Physician
References
6
Case No. ADJ10104251 ADJ10104255
Regular
Aug 01, 2017

MARCELINO PALMA vs. EVAN HUMPHREYS LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT, FIRST COMP dba MARKEL INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for removal by defendant Markel Insurance Company. The defendant sought removal due to the WCJ ordering two additional Qualified Medical Evaluation (QME) panels in ophthalmology and psychology, arguing it caused prejudice and cost. However, the Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, noting the defendant's counsel explicitly stated "No, your Honor" when asked for objections to the orders. The decision to develop the record via additional QMEs was within the WCJ's discretion.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluationOphthalmologyPsychologyWCJ discretionsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)specific injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ8248586
Regular
Oct 16, 2018

CELIA ESCAMILLA vs. SANTA BARBARA ZOO, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought removal to the Appeals Board to challenge the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) order appointing physicians to evaluate the applicant's internal and psychological injury claims. The defendant argued this appointment was unjustified and would cause prejudice and irreparable harm due to additional evaluation costs. The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal, finding the defendant failed to establish significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and that the ALJ acted within their authority under Labor Code section 5701. Removal is an extraordinary remedy not warranted in this instance.

Petition for RemovalLabor Code section 5310WCJ orderregular physiciansinternal injurypsychological injurygood causeprejudiceirreparable harmmedical evaluations
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gold v. Chassin

The petitioner, a licensed psychiatrist, faced disciplinary proceedings for alleged sexual misconduct with five former patients. A Hearing Committee and Administrative Review Board found him guilty on multiple specifications and revoked his medical license. The petitioner sought annulment, claiming actual prejudice due to the 15-25 year delay in charges, citing lost records, deceased witnesses, and faded memories. The court found that for patients B and E, the unavailability of records demonstrating psychological impairments or contradicting appointment logs severely hampered his defense, leading to dismissal of these charges. However, charges related to patients A, C, and D were sustained, as prejudice was not sufficiently demonstrated or his defense was adequate. The court remitted the matter for a redetermination of the penalty, excluding the dismissed charges.

Professional Medical ConductPsychiatrist MisconductSexual MisconductDisciplinary ProceedingsActual PrejudiceStatute of Limitations DefenseDue ProcessWitness CredibilityHearsay EvidenceAnnulment of Charges
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 3,128 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