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

People v. Mack

The defendant appealed the County Court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to felony murder and first-degree robbery. The initial appeal led to a remittal, vacating earlier competency findings and the denial of plea withdrawal due to a Sixth Amendment violation. Upon remittal, after further examination and an evidentiary hearing, the County Court again found the defendant competent at the time of his 2003 plea and denied his motion to withdraw it, as well as claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The current appellate court affirmed the County Court's decision, finding that the record supported the conclusion that the defendant was competent and his plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and that counsel provided meaningful representation.

Felony MurderRobbery First DegreeGuilty Plea WithdrawalCompetency to Stand TrialIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate ReviewSixth AmendmentMental Health EvaluationSchizo-affective DisorderPlea Colloquy
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Kokoni

National Freelancers, Inc. (NFI), a company referring skilled clerical workers, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had found NFI liable for unemployment insurance contributions for a claimant and other similarly situated workers, determining an employer-employee relationship existed. This appeal followed a prior remittal by the court due to NFI being denied the opportunity to cross-examine the claimant. In the renewed proceedings, the Board struck the claimant's testimony but sustained its finding based on other evidence, including testimony from NFI's president. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board correctly interpreted the prior remittal order and that substantial evidence supported the employer-employee relationship finding. The court also rejected NFI's argument regarding the claimant's voluntary unemployment, stating the issue was not timely raised.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorTemporary StaffingAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewDue ProcessCross-ExaminationHearsay EvidenceWaiver
References
4
Case No. 536164
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Ryszard Cala

Claimant Ryszard Cala filed an occupational disease claim in 2017 for binaural hearing loss due to asbestos exposure. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim with a 25.32% schedule loss of use (SLU), crediting the carrier's consultant over the claimant's treating physician. The Workers' Compensation Board (Board) affirmed this in 2020. On a previous appeal, the Appellate Division reversed and remitted in 2022, finding the Board failed to address the missing audiogram results from the independent medical examination (IME) report. Upon remittal, the Board, in August 2022, ruled claimant's application for review from the WCLJ's decision was untimely and declined to entertain it. This Court again reversed, holding that the Board had implicitly excused the untimeliness in its 2020 decision, and therefore, upon remittal, should have addressed the merits concerning the audiogram omission. The matter is remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseBinaural Hearing LossAsbestos ExposureSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Independent Medical Examination (IME)AudiogramTimeliness of AppealRemittalAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. 2015-2415 K C
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2018

Valdan Acupuncture, P.C. v. NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

In an action by Valdan Acupuncture, P.C., as assignee of Daequan Woods, to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the defendant, NY Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., moved for summary judgment. The Civil Court denied parts of the defendant's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the Civil Court's order in part. The appellate court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding a $883.80 claim, confirming the assignor's failure to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs) and proper mailing of IME scheduling letters. However, for other claims, the IME no-show defense was deemed not preserved, leading to a remittal of those remaining branches of the motion to the Civil Court for a new determination based on alternative grounds. The decision was reversed in part, with a partial grant of summary judgment to the defendant and remittal for further proceedings.

No-fault benefitsIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Summary judgmentAppellate reviewAssignor's failure to appearDenial of benefitsMedical claimsCivil CourtKings CountyInsurance dispute
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rothenberg v. AAA Custom Lab

This case involves an appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Board's decisions which determined that a decedent's death arose out of and in the course of his employment. The decedent, a vice-president of AAA Custom Lab, was fatally shot near a diner after a reported business meeting. The appellate court affirmed the Board's findings, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the decisions. A dissenting judge argued for remittal, citing concerns about potential involvement in an illegal enterprise and insufficient exploration of the meeting's nature and its link to the homicide.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryHomicideBusiness MeetingAppellate ReviewAffirmationDissenting OpinionCausal ConnectionCourse of EmploymentArising Out Of Employment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Koenigsmark v. State

Claimant, with a history of schizophrenia and suicidal tendencies, escaped Elmira Psychiatric Center and attempted suicide. The dissent argues that the Court of Claims erred in dismissing the claim, asserting that Elmira was negligent. The negligence stemmed from systemic failures in patient record-keeping, communication of doctor's orders, reporting changes in patient behavior, and facility security. These omissions, according to the dissent, constituted common-law negligence, not mere errors in medical judgment, warranting a reversal of the lower court's dismissal and remittal for a trial on damages.

negligencepsychiatric caresuicide attempthospital liabilitypatient supervisionmedical malpracticemental health facilityrecord keeping failurecommunication breakdownsecurity inadequacy
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1986

Willer v. New York State Board of Regents

This CPLR article 78 proceeding challenged the Commissioner of Education's revocation of the petitioner's medical license. The case focused on the proper application of collateral estoppel, deriving from a prior Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) determination. Following a remittal to allow the petitioner to demonstrate a lack of a full and fair opportunity to litigate before the WCB, the court found the petitioner failed to meet this burden. Consequently, the court affirmed the proper invocation of collateral estoppel by the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct and confirmed the Commissioner's determination, dismissing the petition.

Collateral EstoppelMedical License RevocationProfessional MisconductCPLR Article 78Administrative LawWorkers' Compensation BoardDue ProcessJudicial ReviewState Board for Professional Medical ConductEducation Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bran v. Wimbush

The claimant was injured after falling from a ladder while performing sheetrocking work for the employer. In a previous appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Board modified the claimant's average weekly wage (AWW) from $620 to $500 upon remittal. The employer appealed this recalculation, arguing that the claimant, an undocumented worker, should not have any AWW established. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting the employer's new argument was not raised at the administrative level. The court found the Board's calculation of $500 AWW proper, based on the claimant's work schedule of three to four days a week at $130 per day.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageUndocumented WorkerAppealRemittalEmployer LiabilityJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawBoard DecisionWage Calculation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J.A. Marshall Sheet Metal & Roofing, Inc. v. State of New York

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviews a determination by the Department of Economic Development denying the petitioner's request for certification as a woman-owned business enterprise. The petitioner, a New York corporation involved in sheet metal construction, was deemed ineligible. The court found that the respondent misinterpreted its rules by focusing on when the owner, Eva Marshall, acquired her interest rather than at the time of the application. The determination was annulled, and the matter remitted to the respondent for reconsideration using the appropriate eligibility factors. A concurring and dissenting opinion argued for annulling the determination due to lack of substantial evidence and irrationality, without remittal.

woman-owned business enterpriseWBE certificationCPLR Article 78administrative revieweligibility criteriastandard of reviewremittalsubstantial evidenceNew York laweconomic development
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re David Michael J.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Onondaga County Family Court, presided over by Judge Hedges, which terminated parental rights. The Appellate Court previously remitted the matter to Family Court for further proceedings, including a dispositional hearing. On remittal, the Family Court's determination was found to be supported by legally sufficient evidence, despite the admission of hearsay testimony, which was deemed proper under Family Ct Act § 624. The court properly relied on testimony from prior hearings and the dispositional hearing to conclude that there had been no substantial change or progress from the respondent that would prevent the termination of parental rights. Consequently, the order to terminate parental rights was unanimously affirmed.

Parental RightsTermination of Parental RightsFamily CourtAppealHearsay EvidenceDispositional HearingSuspended JudgmentComplianceFoster Care
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 62 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