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
Feb 01, 1989

Murphy v. Blum

Donald Murphy, an NBA referee, underwent a physical examination by defendant Dr. Richard Blum and a stress test analyzed by Blum, which was found "abnormal." The results were communicated to the NBA and Murphy's personal physician. Following a a cardiac arrest that ended his career, Murphy sued Dr. Blum for medical malpractice. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, dismissed the complaint, ruling that no physician-patient relationship existed between Murphy and Dr. Blum because Blum was retained solely by the NBA for an examination, not for treatment. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, upholding that a doctor engaged for examination purposes only assumes duties associated with those functions, not duties concerning treatment or expert opinions.

Medical MalpracticePhysician-Patient RelationshipDuty of CareComplaint DismissalCPLR 3211(a)(7)Appellate ReviewProfessional Sports InjuryPre-employment ExaminationNo Physician-Patient RelationshipAffirmation of Order
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bolden v. Blum

The petitioner, a recipient of Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) with seven children, had her public assistance grant reduced by nearly $400 per month after being reclassified for home relief. She challenged this reclassification, arguing her children were deprived of parental support due to her mental disability, which rendered her unemployable. Respondent Blum, in a fair hearing decision dated October 27, 1978, affirmed the reclassification, stating the children were not deprived of parental support or care because the petitioner could perform household tasks. The court, presided over by Judge Robert C. Williams, found that respondent Blum incorrectly applied an 'and' standard instead of an 'or' standard for determining deprivation of parental support or care. The court concluded that the petitioner's children were indeed deprived of parental support due to her inability to work caused by her mental disability, thus qualifying for ADC benefits. Consequently, the court granted the petition, reversing and annulling the fair hearing decision.

mental disabilitypublic assistanceAid to Dependent Children (ADC)home reliefparental supportfair hearingreclassificationArticle 78 proceedingunemployabilitysocial services law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Blum

Petitioners Johnson and Stone challenged the denial of public assistance for their minor children, a denial based on State Commissioner’s Administrative Directive 80ADM-1. This directive, issued in response to Matter of Gunn v Blum, made entire families ineligible for public assistance if applicants refused to dispose of non-essential assets like automobiles, treating applicants differently from recipients. Special Term found the directive violated equal protection but denied attorney's fees without explanation, a decision affirmed by the Appellate Division as discretionary. The Court of Appeals reversed, clarifying that under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, a prevailing party should ordinarily recover reasonable attorney's fees unless special circumstances render it unjust, according to the Newman-Northcross rule. The Court rejected arguments that publicly funded legal services or personal relief constituted special circumstances, and remitted the case to the Supreme Court, Chemung County, for the determination of counsel fees.

Attorney's FeesCivil Rights ActPublic AssistanceEqual ProtectionPrevailing PartySpecial CircumstancesRemittedAppellate ReviewConstitutional LawAdministrative Directive
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Society of New York Hospital v. Bernstein

James Rodgers, on behalf of his son John Rodgers, sought medical assistance benefits (Medicaid), which were denied by the New York City Department of Social Services. This denial was affirmed by Barbara Blum, Acting Commissioner of the Department of Social Services of the State of New York, on January 3, 1978, following a fair hearing. The court unanimously annulled this administrative determination, finding it lacked substantial evidence. The 'evidence' presented at the fair hearing consisted of unsubstantiated Agency documents and testimony from a social worker without personal knowledge of the facts. The court emphasized that administrative decisions, while not bound by strict rules of evidence, must be supported by evidence acceptable in a court of law. Consequently, the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

Medicaid benefitsdenial of benefitsfair hearingsubstantial evidenceadministrative determinationannulmentremandsocial servicesmedical assistancelack of evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Avila-Blum v. Casa de Cambio Delgado, Inc.

In this case, District Judge Marrero reviewed the defendants' objections to a protective order issued by Magistrate Judge Andrew Peek. The protective order barred defendants from inquiring into plaintiff Monica Avila-Blum's immigration status during her deposition, citing the prejudicial effect and minimal relevance at the liability stage, and the chilling effect on undocumented workers pursuing employment claims. Defendants argued that the Magistrate Judge erred in applying case law and in limiting the inquiry to the damages phase, asserting its relevance to credibility and citing Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB. Judge Marrero affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order, finding it was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, agreeing that the potential for prejudice and the questionable probative value outweighed the defendants' discovery interests at the liability stage. The court also clarified that Hoffman Plastic was distinguishable and limited in scope. Consequently, the defendants' objections were denied, upholding the protective order.

Protective OrderImmigration StatusDiscovery LimitsCredibility EvidencePrejudicial EvidenceFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEmployment DiscriminationUndocumented WorkersDistrict Court ReviewMagistrate Judge Order
References
9
Case No. ADJ7356433
Regular
Apr 25, 2014

TANYA PERDUE vs. COMMUNITY SYSTEMS CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The defendant sought reconsideration of a finding of 100% permanent disability, arguing for apportionment based on the PQME's opinion. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the decedent sustained 80% permanent disability after apportionment. This decision was based on Dr. Blum's opinion, which the Board considered substantial evidence for apportionment. The dissenting commissioner argued Dr. Blum's apportionment was speculative and not substantial evidence due to his deposition testimony.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentQualified Medical EvaluatorWhole Person ImpairmentCervical StenosisOssification of Posterior Longitudinal LigamentCentral Cord SyndromeFuture Earning Capacity
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Key v. Blum

The petitioner sought to reverse an administrative decision denying a special grant for essential furniture and clothing, which were lost due to theft after a fire. Respondents argued that theft was not a "catastrophe" under 18 NYCRR 352.7 (d), but the court determined that the loss, initiated by the fire, qualified as a "like catastrophe" under Social Services Law § 131-a subdivision 6. Furthermore, the court emphasized the state's affirmative duty to provide for the needy under Social Services Law § 131 subdivision 1 and NY Const article XVII § 1. Consequently, the court granted the application, reversing the denial and remanding the case for calculation and provision of the necessary public assistance.

Public AssistanceAid to Families with Dependent ChildrenSpecial GrantFurniture ReplacementClothing ReplacementTheft LossFire DamageCatastropheSocial Services LawAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

French v. Blum

This case concerns an appeal regarding the reduction of a public assistance grant. The petitioner, a recipient of home relief, had her monthly grant reduced after receiving state and federal tax refunds. She challenged the local agency's decision to reduce her grant, arguing that she had already expended the refunds. Special Term initially annulled the determination, treating the reduction as an attempted recoupment of overpayments. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, stating that tax refunds are considered available resources that recipients must utilize to reduce their need for public assistance, regardless of whether they have been subsequently spent. The court emphasized that timely notice of reduction was given while the funds were still available.

Public AssistanceHome ReliefSocial Services LawTax RefundsResource UtilizationRecoupmentCPLR Article 78Available ResourcesNotice of IntentAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 1995

Allen v. Blum

This case involves an appeal in two related actions seeking damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff, Leon Allen, an employee of Coca Cola Bottling Company, was injured by a moving service van after installing a replacement transmission. Defendants Brian Pechaska, as President of New York Coca Cola Distributors Association, and New York Coca Cola Distributors Association, appealed a Supreme Court order that denied their motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the complaint based on their vicarious liability under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, granting the appellants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint against them. The court reasoned that since Coca Cola Bottling and supervisor Michael Parise were immune from suit under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6), the appellants could not be held vicariously liable as owners of the service van.

Personal InjuryVicarious LiabilityVehicle and Traffic LawWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewExclusive RemedyOwner LiabilityAutomobile AccidentWorkplace Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Catalano v. Blum

The petitioner challenged the denial of Medicaid payments for out-of-State specialized medical care by the New York State Department of Social Services and Erie County Department of Social Services. The court affirmed the denial, finding the determination rational and not arbitrary or capricious. The petitioner failed to exhaust local medical resources and did not cooperate with the agency's request for medical documentation to confirm her condition and explore local treatment options. The court also noted that the petitioner's potential remedy under the Workers’ Compensation Law is not a bar to eligibility for specialized medical care under review.

MedicaidCPLR Article 78Social Services LawMedical CareOut-of-State CareFair HearingAdministrative LawRationality ReviewExhaustion of RemediesChemical Sensitivity
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 19 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