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
Jan 27, 1965

Rivera v. Hellman

This case involves a motion to confirm a Special Referee's report concerning the amounts and priorities of various liens. The Special Referee conducted a hearing and reported on claims from an attorney for the plaintiff ($793.50), Roosevelt Hospital ($846.53), and the Millinery Health Fund ($641.00, later adjusted to $528). The report established the amounts of each lien and recommended priorities, placing the attorney's lien first, followed by the hospital lien (except for a $12 outpatient service), and then the compensation lien. The court concurred with the Special Referee's report and recommendations, granting the motion to confirm.

Lien PriorityAttorney's LienHospital LienDisability BenefitsWorkmen's Compensation LawSpecial Referee ReportMotion GrantedNew York Supreme CourtLien LawMotion Practice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grant v. Rycoline Products, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order from December 20, 1996, which denied the defendant-appellant's motion to reject a Special Referee’s report and for a protective order, confirming the report and directing the production of certain records. Additionally, the court modified an order from February 28, 1997, to grant the defendant-appellant 45 days to comply with the directive, specifically for the production of redacted employee worker compensation records. The court found that the IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the Referee’s report.

Discovery DisputeProtective OrderSpecial RefereeWorkers' Compensation RecordsCompliance ExtensionJudicial DiscretionAppellate ReviewMotion DenialRecord Production
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Liquidation of Midland Insurance

Policyholders New York Dock Railway (NYDR) and Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal (BEDT), joined by claimants Buividas and Romacho, moved to confirm a referee's report that found coverage for their claims by the Stock Workers' Compensation Security Fund. The Superintendent of Insurance, as liquidator of Midland Insurance Company, cross-moved to disaffirm the report, arguing against Security Fund coverage based on his interpretation of relevant statutes. The court reviewed the referee's decision, finding it erroneous due to a misinterpretation of legislative history and intent regarding security fund coverage limitations, particularly concerning Chapter 801 amendments. Upholding the Superintendent's rational interpretation, the court denied the motion to confirm and granted the cross-motion to disaffirm, affirming the denial of security fund coverage.

Workers' Compensation Security FundInsurance Coverage DisputeMidland Insurance Company LiquidationFederal Employers' Liability ActJones ActLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationLegislative HistoryThird-Party IndemnificationEmployer's Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2009

Rosario v. Montalvo & Son Auto Repair Center, Ltd.

This case involves an appeal by the defendant, Montalvo & Son Auto Repair Center, Ltd., from an order that granted the plaintiff's motion to confirm a referee's report and partially granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The referee's report found that the plaintiff was injured while employed by the defendant on April 24, 2007, during the course of such employment. The appellate court reversed the order, holding that questions of fact regarding the plaintiff's employment status and injury in the course of employment should have been referred to the Workers' Compensation Board, as it has primary jurisdiction over such determinations. Additionally, the court found that the Supreme Court misapplied the doctrine of inconsistent positions or judicial estoppel because there was no prior legal proceeding where the defendant had successfully argued the plaintiff was its employee. The matter was remitted for a new determination of the plaintiff's cross-motion after resolution by the Workers' Compensation Board.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjuryEmployment LawJudicial EstoppelPrimary JurisdictionAppellate PracticeSummary JudgmentReferee's ReportKings CountyCourt Procedure
References
7
Case No. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1971

Maurizio v. Hoberman

This case involves a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, dated March 26, 1971, concerning the rating examination papers of civil service workers. The initial judgment confirmed a Special Referee's report but was subsequently modified. The modification involved remanding the matter to the respondents for reconsideration, with the judgment then affirmed as modified. The court underscored that the duty to establish requirements for promotional examinations lies solely with the respondents, and judicial interference is unwarranted if exercised fairly. Although the respondents did not participate in the appeal, implying agreement with the Special Term's views, the courts reaffirmed their inability to assume the respondents' powers or duties.

Civil ServicePromotional ExaminationExamination PapersJudicial ReviewRemandSupreme CourtReferee ReportAdministrative DiscretionJudicial RestraintNew York
References
1
Case No. 15-0129
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2014

Baltasar D. Cruz v. James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman D/B/A Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen

This case involves a libel lawsuit filed by Baltasar D. Cruz against James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report (BOR), and Katherine Haenschen. The lawsuit stemmed from a statement in an article posted on the BOR website by Van Sickle regarding Cruz, who was a judicial candidate. The trial court initially granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and awarded attorney's fees to all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit and the award of attorney's fees to James Van Sickle. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney's fees to Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen, ruling that as they were represented pro bono, they did not 'incur' attorney's fees as required by the TCPA.

LibelDefamationTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPPro Bono RepresentationAttorney's FeesJudicial CandidatePublic OfficialFreedom of SpeechStatutory Interpretation
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 1977

Claim of Rivers v. Adirondack Mobile Home Service Center, Inc.

Claimant, a laborer, reported a back injury sustained on May 3, 1976, while lifting. Although not immediately reported, the employer was informed two days later. The referee found a compensable injury, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board on June 16, 1977. The appellants’ request to restore the case to the referee’s calendar for additional testimony and medical evidence was denied. The court upheld the Board’s decision, citing substantial evidence from claimant’s testimony and doctors’ reports, and affirming the Board’s proper exercise of discretion.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryCompensable InjuryNotice of InjuryEvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionReferee DecisionCausally Related DisabilityLifting Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ciervo

The Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts brought a charge of professional misconduct against respondent Ralph E. Ciervo for failing to cooperate with investigations regarding complaints from Herbert S. Gulston and Julie Medina. A Special Referee sustained the charge, and the Grievance Committee moved to confirm the report. The respondent admitted to the non-cooperation, citing personal difficulties including job loss, recession impact on his practice, and severe injuries from accidents leading to depression and impaired judgment due to pain medication. The Court granted the motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year, with conditions for reinstatement including medical reports on his physical and mental health.

Professional misconductAttorney suspensionGrievance CommitteeFailure to cooperateRules of Professional ConductMitigationMedical conditionMental healthReinstatement conditionsDisciplinary action
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colindres v. Carpenito

Plaintiff Rochelle Colindres sought a protective order to deny defendants' demand for a medical report from her former treating psychologist, Diane Henry, or alternatively, relief from compliance with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts § 202.17(b)(1). Colindres argued that the defendants waived their right to the report as the independent medical examination (IME) already occurred, and that obtaining the report would be an undue hardship since Henry ceased treatment due to Colindres' attendance issues. Defendants Mario Carpenito, Jr., City of White Plains, and White Plains Parking Department opposed, asserting that the report was necessary to clarify alleged injuries, prepare for cross-examination, and facilitate settlement, highlighting Colindres' complex medical history predating the incident. The court denied both branches of Colindres' motion, finding that the rule applies broadly to personal injury actions, defendants did not waive their entitlement, and Colindres failed to prove it was impossible to obtain the report. The court ordered Colindres to exchange a compliant medical report from Diane Henry by March 27, 2017.

protective ordermedical report disclosurediscovery disputepsychological treatmentindependent medical examinationCPLR 310322 NYCRR 202.17waiver of discoveryundue hardshippersonal injury damages
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 5,969 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