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

Video Aid Corp. v. Town of Wallkill

The case discusses whether Video Aid Corp. should be reimbursed for an unconstitutional $27,000 water sewer tap-in fee paid to the Town of Wallkill to obtain a building permit. This dissenting opinion, authored by Bellacosa, J., argues that the Appellate Division's order for reimbursement was correct, stating that the payment was made under legal duress. The dissent highlights that the Town unlawfully exacted the fee, impeding Video Aid's business expansion, and that Video Aid's immediate lawsuit constituted "authentic resistance." It draws on precedents affirming that municipalities cannot manipulate responsibilities for revenue generation and that involuntary payments, even without formal protest, warrant recovery, ultimately advocating for affirmance of the reimbursement order.

Unconstitutional feeLegal duressInvoluntary paymentBuilding permitMunicipal feesReimbursementTown of WallkillVideo Aid Corp.Business expansionAppellate Division
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Morelli v. Tops Markets

Claimant, having sustained work-related injuries in 2007 and receiving benefits, was questioned by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) regarding work activities at a 2011 hearing. Immediately after, the employer and its carrier sought to introduce surveillance video and investigator testimony, alleging a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The WCLJ denied this request and precluded the evidence, ruling that the carrier failed to disclose the surveillance prior to the claimant's testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, reiterating the established requirement for timely disclosure of surveillance materials to prevent 'gamesmanship.' The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary or capricious action, as the carrier had an opportunity to disclose the evidence before prompting the WCLJ's questioning and before the claimant testified.

Workers' Compensation LawSurveillance EvidenceDisclosure ObligationPreclusion of EvidenceAppellate ReviewEvidence AdmissibilityClaimant TestimonyEmployer ResponsibilitiesCarrier ResponsibilitiesBoard Decision
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2011

Avrio Group Surveillance Solutions, Inc. v. Essex Insurance

Plaintiff Avrio Group Surveillance Solutions commenced a declaratory judgment action against Defendant Essex Insurance Company, seeking an order to defend and indemnify Avrio in a personal injury action. Essex filed a motion to dismiss, which was converted to a motion for summary judgment. The court addressed two main exclusions: the Completed Operations Exclusion and the Contractual Liability Exclusion. The court found a potentiality of coverage under the Completed Operations Exclusion due to ambiguities in the term "intended use" and unresolved factual issues regarding the completion of work, denying summary judgment on this ground. However, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Essex regarding the Contractual Liability Exclusion, as the subcontract did not qualify as an "insured contract" under the policy's specific definition in effect at the time of the incident, and Avrio was presumed to have agreed to these terms. The case will proceed to an evidentiary hearing on the Completed Operations Exclusion.

Insurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentContractual Liability ExclusionCompleted Operations ExclusionInsurance Policy InterpretationChoice of LawMaryland Contract LawFederal Civil ProcedureDuty to Defend
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2004

Ulloa v. Universal Music and Video Distribution Corp.

Plaintiff Demme Ulloa initiated legal action against Universal Music and Video Distribution Corp., Island Def Jam Music Group, Roc-A-Fella Records, LLC, and Shawn Carter, alleging copyright infringement, false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, unjust enrichment, joint authorship, and an accounting of sales. Ulloa claimed to have spontaneously created a vocal counter-melody for Shawn Carter's song "Izzo (H.O.V.A.)" which was later used without proper credit or compensation. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the claims of joint authorship and Lanham Act violations, dismissing them. However, it denied both parties' motions for summary judgment regarding copyright infringement, citing unresolved factual disputes concerning originality, work-for-hire status, and implied license. Additionally, the defendants' motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim and to bifurcate the trial were denied.

Copyright InfringementLanham ActUnjust EnrichmentJoint AuthorshipSummary JudgmentWork for HireImplied LicenseMusical CompositionSound RecordingOriginality
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Denman v. Cobbler's Restaurant

Claimant sustained a work-related injury in 2003, leading to workers' compensation benefits. In July 2011, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined that the claimant had misrepresented her disabilities to influence benefit determinations, despite being totally disabled. This finding was based on hearing testimony and surveillance videos. Consequently, the WCLJ imposed a discretionary penalty, reducing her weekly benefits for one year. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ’s determination, concluding that the claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence derived from the claimant's testimony and the surveillance videos.

Misrepresentation of DisabilitySurveillance Video EvidenceDiscretionary PenaltyBenefit ReductionWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-a ViolationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWitness CredibilityIndependent Medical ExaminationTotal Disability
References
7
Case No. CV-22-2386
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

Matter of Tirado v. Symphony Space, Inc.

Claimant Alejandro Tirado, a maintenance worker, filed two claims for work-related injuries in 2013 and received wage replacement benefits. The employer's carrier alleged claimant violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by knowingly misrepresenting his physical capabilities to physicians during independent medical examinations (IMEs), supported by surveillance videos. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a violation, imposing a mandatory penalty of forfeiture of past wage replacement benefits and a discretionary lifetime bar from future wage replacement benefits due to egregious misrepresentations. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's findings and decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence, including medical testimony and surveillance videos, supported the finding that claimant feigned or exaggerated his disability for years to influence his workers' compensation claim and that the penalty was not disproportionate to the offense.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aMisrepresentationExaggerated DisabilitySurveillance VideoWage Replacement BenefitsMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyLifetime BarIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Appellate Division Affirmance
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lindsey v. County of Erie

The plaintiff, Ms. Lindsey, an employee of Ciminelli Construction Company, was injured at a worksite on March 21, 2000, and subsequently sought both Labor Law benefits and workers' compensation. After workers' compensation benefits were suspended due to alleged misrepresentation, Ms. Lindsey filed a motion seeking to compel Travelers Insurance Company, the compensation carrier, to produce surveillance videotapes prior to further Workers' Compensation Board proceedings. Travelers Insurance Company argued that such discovery would violate administrative rules; however, the court found that CPLR 3101 (i) was controlling in the civil action. The court further determined that Travelers, despite not being a direct party to the Labor Law action, created the surveillance tapes for its overall defense of claims against its insured, making them discoverable. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion, ordering Travelers Insurance Company to immediately deliver all surveillance tapes to the plaintiff's counsel.

Discovery MotionSurveillance VideotapesWorkers' CompensationLabor LawCPLR 3101(i)Insurance Carrier LiabilityAdministrative RulesCivil ProcedureEmployer LiabilityNonparty Discovery
References
7
Case No. ADJ769451 (MON 0236205)
Regular
Apr 01, 2010

CLEMI BOUBLI vs. CAST & CREW PAYROLL, CNA

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal after the WCJ struck an Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) report and closed discovery. The AME reviewed surveillance videos suggesting the applicant's reported disability was feigned or exaggerated, recommending further evaluation. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding disputes regarding video admissibility require resolution at the trial level. The matter is returned for the WCJ to determine video admissibility and decide on further medical evaluations.

RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorSurveillance VideoExaggerated DisabilityNeuropsychological EvaluationUnfair DecisionAdmissible EvidenceEvidentiary RulingsReconsiderationTrial Level Proceedings
References
1
Case No. ADJ1479326 (ANA 0411799) ADJ7233578
Regular
Oct 07, 2014

JONATHAN DUONG vs. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board overturned a WCJ's decision to exclude sub rosa surveillance video. The Board found no legal basis for excluding the video obtained in a mobile home park parking lot and a grocery store, as the applicant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in those public areas. The Board determined that the defendant would suffer significant prejudice from the exclusion, justifying removal of the case. Therefore, the sub rosa video was ruled admissible and may be provided to medical evaluators.

Sub rosa videoremovalreconsiderationadmissibilityinvasion of privacyreasonable expectation of privacycivil liabilityworkers' compensation fraudmedical-legal evaluatorworkers' compensation appeals board
References
20
Case No. ADJ3787731 (OAK 0332481)
Regular
Oct 17, 2008

LINDA ALCUTT vs. VOLT SERVICES GROUP, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Board granted reconsideration to allow the WCJ to consider surveillance videos and the medical reports of Dr. Morris, which were initially excluded. The WCJ erred by not admitting Dr. Morris' reports, who opined the applicant's condition was permanent and stationary, and by failing to discuss the surveillance evidence. The case is remanded for further proceedings to admit Dr. Morris' reports and consider all evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityPermanent and StationaryQualified Medical EvaluatorTreating PhysicianSub Rosa InvestigationMedical ReportsLabor Code § 4062Admissibility of Evidence
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 220 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