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

Poppenberg v. Reliable Maintainance Corp.

In this negligence action, the plaintiff sued Reliable Maintenance Corporation for injuries sustained due to a defective elevator. Reliable moved for summary judgment, asserting an affirmative defense that the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, arguing that the plaintiff was either an employee of a joint venture involving Reliable and Suburban Maintenance Corporation or a special employee of Reliable. Special Term denied the motion, citing unresolved questions of fact regarding the plaintiff's employment status. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding no evidence of a joint venture due to the lack of shared profits and losses among the corporations, despite common ownership. The court also concluded that there were insufficient facts to determine control over the plaintiff for either joint or special employment, necessitating a trial for full factual development.

Workers' CompensationJoint VentureSpecial EmploymentSummary JudgmentNegligenceEmployer LiabilityCorporate StructureControl TestAppellate ReviewFactual Dispute
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. J.A.

This case addresses the extent to which a psychiatrist can rely on out-of-court materials, such as presentence reports and parole records, to establish a history of sex offenses for a "mental abnormality" diagnosis in a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding. The petitioner's expert psychiatrist diagnosed respondent Mr. A. with pedophilia, paraphilia n.o.s., and antisocial personality disorder, relying on various criminal history documents. The diagnosis of pedophilia specifically hinged on two 1961 incidents, whose underlying facts were challenged by the respondent as unreliable hearsay. The court analyzed the professional reliability and business record exceptions to the hearsay rule, finding that documents supporting 1980 and 1992 convictions were reliable due to corroboration. However, the reports for the 1961 convictions were deemed unreliable, lacking sufficient indicia of reliability, contemporaneity, and unchallengeable contents. Consequently, the court disregarded and excluded the expert's conclusion of pedophilia, as it was solely based on these unreliable hearsay documents, while affirming the reliance on other, more reliable evidence.

Mental Hygiene Law Article 10Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (SOMTA)Expert TestimonyHearsay EvidenceProfessional Reliability ExceptionBusiness Records ExceptionPsychiatric DiagnosisPedophiliaPresentence ReportsParole Records
References
33
Case No. LBO 0341721
Regular
Jul 17, 2008

CATHERINE JORDAN vs. COUNTRY VILLA TERRACE, AMERICAN ALL-RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a prior order to defer the lien of Reliable Medical Supplies, LLC. The WCJ had dismissed the lien, mistakenly believing it belonged to a suspended corporation, "Reliable Medical Supplies, Inc." The Board found that Reliable Medical Supplies, LLC is an active, in-good-standing entity and remanded the matter for determination of its lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReliable Medical Supplies LLCReliable Medical Supplies Inc.Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderDurable Medical EquipmentSuspended CorporationLimited Liability CompanySecretary of State
References
1
Case No. ADJ8948890
Regular
Oct 07, 2025

ANTONIO COLINDRES vs. PRESTIGE MOTORCOACH CORP.; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

Lien claimant, Reliable Medical Supply, sought reconsideration of a Findings and Order issued on July 24, 2025, which found that the medical treatment services provided to applicant were not reasonably required to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury. Reliable Medical Supply contended that the issue of medical necessity was not raised on the pretrial conference statement. The Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, agreeing with the WCJ that the lien claimant failed to prove the medical treatment services were reasonable and necessary, noting the absence of a DWC Form RFA and lack of MTUS citations in Dr. Shah's report.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderPretrial Conference StatementMedical Treatment ServicesReasonable and NecessaryBurden of ProofUtilization ReviewMedical Treatment Utilization ScheduleAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
10
Case No. 98027
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Roe

The case involves a defendant, charged with sexual abuse and endangering a child, who pleaded guilty to lesser charges. Prior to sentencing, the court intended to classify the defendant as a level 3 sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act, citing a clinical assessment of pedophilia. The defendant challenged this classification, requesting an evidentiary hearing and expert testimony, which the court denied. The court ruled that while due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, a full evidentiary hearing is not always mandated for risk level classification. It established procedures ensuring due process, including requiring the People to prove the reliability of information by a preponderance of the evidence. Ultimately, the court found sufficient, reliable information to classify the defendant as a risk level 3 sexually violent predator.

Sex Offender Registration ActMegan's LawDue ProcessRisk AssessmentPedophiliaClinical AssessmentEvidentiary HearingProbationRecidivismNotification Procedures
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zappala v. Albicelli

This civil rights action, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, concerns alleged improprieties in the investigation of potential sexual abuse of Micha Zappala by her father, Michael Zappala. Plaintiffs, including Micha, her brother Anthony, and parents Veronica and Michael Zappala, sued employees of the Liverpool School District and Onondaga County, alleging constitutional rights violations arising from Micha's temporary removal from custody and a subsequent child neglect petition. The core issue was the reliability of "facilitated communication" used by Micha, a child with Down Syndrome, to report abuse. The court found that the County Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, concluding their actions were objectively reasonable given the uncertainty surrounding facilitated communication's reliability at the time. Consequently, the court granted the County Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims against them.

Civil Rights42 U.S.C. § 1983Child Abuse InvestigationFacilitated CommunicationQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentConstitutional RightsFamily LawChild Protective ServicesDue Process
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kotlyarsky v. New York Post

Plaintiffs Boris and Alla Kotlyarsky and Reliable Rehabilitation Center, Inc. sued defendants New York Post, NYP Holdings, Inc., Susan Edelman, and Devlin Barrett for libel. The action stemmed from a December 11, 2000 article in the New York Post that alleged Boris Kotlyarsky was under federal indictment and described Reliable Rehabilitation Center as a 'medical mill.' Plaintiffs claimed they were promised a retraction, which was later withdrawn, leading them to delay filing their lawsuit until August 12, 2002. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the one-year statute of limitations for libel had expired on December 12, 2001. Plaintiffs invoked equitable estoppel, equitable tolling, and promissory estoppel to argue the statute was tolled. The court found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate due diligence in pursuing the retraction and thus, the doctrines of estoppel or tolling were not applicable. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

defamationlibelstatute of limitationsequitable estoppelequitable tollingpromissory estoppelsummary judgmentdue diligenceretractionNew York Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Bing

This case involves a Huntley hearing concerning the admissibility of statements made by defendant Bruce Bing to the police. A robbery-burglary occurred on May 17, 1985, at St. Joachim’s Church in Cedarhurst, Nassau County. Based on information from a reliable confidential informant and an eyewitness description, Detective Glenn Dowd and Detective Joseph Brand arrested Bruce Bing on May 25, 1985. Bing was Mirandized and confessed to the crime, both orally in the police car and in a written statement at the precinct. The defense challenged the voluntariness of the confession due to alleged drug withdrawal symptoms and argued a violation of Bing's right to counsel, citing his existing legal representation in Ohio for unrelated charges. The court found the informant reliable, established probable cause for the arrest, and concluded that Bing's statements were voluntarily given and admissible. The court also determined that the defendant's out-of-state legal representation on an out-of-state charge did not trigger New York's indelible right to counsel.

Huntley HearingAdmissibility of StatementsVoluntariness of ConfessionMiranda RightsProbable CauseRight to CounselConfidential Informant ReliabilityOut-of-State RepresentationDrug Withdrawal SymptomsCriminal Procedure Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2009

Ventura v. Ozone Park Holding Corp.

The Supreme Court order, which granted summary judgment to defendants 3 Kings Collision, Inc., Reliable Auto Center, Inc., and the Ozone defendants, and denied plaintiff's cross-motion, was unanimously affirmed. Claims against Reliable Auto Center, Inc. were barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, as it was found to be the plaintiff's employer. The court determined that the plaintiff's work, removing a garage door motor, constituted routine maintenance and was not a protected activity under Labor Law § 240(1). Furthermore, common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against the Ozone defendants were dismissed due to lack of evidence of supervision, control, or notice of defects. 3 Kings Collision, Inc. was also granted summary judgment on the common-law negligence claim as there was no evidence of notice of a ladder defect, and as a gratuitous bailor, it had no duty to warn of a readily discernible defect. The court also providently exercised its discretion in refusing to strike 3 Kings's answer.

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Workers' Compensation Law § 11Common-law negligenceRoutine maintenanceGratuitous bailorDuty to warnAppellate reviewMotion to strike answer
References
13
Case No. SAC 347191
Regular
Apr 09, 2008

STEVE BURGRAFF vs. CONCO CO./RELIABLE TRUCKING; ATHENS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to determine apportionment of permanent disability following a subsequent injury, considering a prior compromise and release (C&R). The WCAB held that the prior C&R, without specific disability percentage stipulations, does not create a conclusive presumption of prior permanent disability under Labor Code § 4664(b). However, the prior injury evidence remains relevant for apportionment based on causation under Labor Code § 4663, remanding the case for further proceedings to determine the percentage of disability attributable to the current injury versus "other factors."

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryLumbar SpinePermanent DisabilityApportionmentCompromise and Release
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 60 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