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
Oct 17, 2012

Douyon v. NY Medical Health Care, P.C.

Plaintiff Gabrielle Douyon sued Seymour Schneider, N.Y. Medical Health Care, P.C., Faraidoon Daniel Golyan, M.D., and Kourosh Golyan, alleging unfair debt collection practices under the FDCPA and NY GBL § 349, along with intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. The lawsuit stemmed from attempts to collect an alleged medical debt following Douyon's emergency heart surgery performed by Dr. Golyan. Both parties sought summary judgment. The court granted Plaintiff partial summary judgment on FDCPA violations related to statutory disclosures and a threatening voicemail. However, many other FDCPA and NY GBL claims were denied due to factual disputes, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed for lack of medical evidence, with negligence claims partially allowed to proceed on the basis of fear for physical safety.

Fair Debt Collections Practices ActNew York General Business Law § 349Debt CollectionSummary JudgmentEmotional DistressNegligenceAgency RelationshipVicarious LiabilityFreelance Debt CollectorUnfair and Deceptive Practices
References
105
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Brookdale University Hospital & Medical Center

Eulalia Perez was admitted to Brookdale University Hospital on November 16, 2010, and treated for various medical conditions before being discharged on December 7. She died two days later. Her family, Ivan and Irma Perez, sued Brookdale and other defendants, alleging a violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and state-law claims of wrongful death and negligence. The court granted Brookdale's motion for summary judgment on the EMTALA claim, determining that the hospital fulfilled its EMTALA duties once Mrs. Perez was stabilized, and any subsequent issues were outside the statute's scope. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, leading to the dismissal of all claims against all parties.

EMTALAEmergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor ActMedical MalpracticeNegligenceWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentSupplemental JurisdictionPatient DumpingHospital DischargeFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02031
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2022

Perez v. NES Med. Servs. of N.Y., P.C.

Francisco R. Perez and his wife sued NES Medical Services of New York, P.C. for medical malpractice, alleging failure to timely diagnose and treat a spinal epidural abscess. NES, which contracted with Lutheran Medical Center's emergency department, moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not vicariously liable as the physicians were independent contractors. The Supreme Court granted NES's motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that NES failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding the employment status of the emergency room physicians. The court emphasized that control over the method and means of work is critical in determining contractor vs. employee status, and NES did not provide sufficient evidence.

Medical MalpracticeVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentEmergency RoomSpinal Epidural AbscessAppellate ReviewEmployment StatusTriable Issues of Fact
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Queens Blvd. Medical, P.C. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

The plaintiff, Queens Blvd. Medical, P.C., sought $950 in first-party no-fault benefits for biofeedback medical services provided to its assignor for lower back and chronic pain syndrome. The central issue at trial was the medical necessity of these services under Insurance Law § 5102 (a) (1). The plaintiff established a prima facie case with expert testimony from a board-certified neurologist affirming the medical appropriateness of biofeedback. The defendant insurance company failed to present admissible evidence to disprove medical necessity, as its expert was deemed incompetent to testify on biofeedback for back pain. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict, awarding judgment for $950 along with statutory costs, interest, and attorney's fees.

No-fault benefitsMedical necessityBiofeedback treatmentExpert testimonyDirected verdictInsurance lawChronic pain syndromeBack injuryCPT codesBurden of proof
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cummins v. North Medical Family Physicians

A claimant sustained a work-related back injury and sought continued medical treatment, which was initially authorized. Disputes over authorization led the claimant to retain an attorney. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge authorized continued medical treatment but denied counsel fees, stating no "money passing" occurred. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this decision. The claimant appealed, arguing the Board unconstitutionally applied Workers’ Compensation Law § 24, misinterpreted the statute regarding fee payment from medical benefits, and abused its discretion. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that counsel fees must be paid from "compensation," defined as a money allowance, and medical benefits are not considered "compensation" for this purpose, thus finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationCounsel FeesAttorney FeesMedical TreatmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawLienCompensation DefinitionAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00361 [124 AD3d 636]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2015

Williams v. Jamaica Hospital Medical Center

The infant plaintiff alleged personal injuries resulting from a delayed transport by the City of New York's Emergency Medical Service during his mother's labor. Approximately four years after the alleged negligence, the plaintiff served a notice of claim and moved to have it deemed timely or for leave to serve a late notice. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion and denied the City's cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this order, finding that the City did not acquire actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim within the statutory 90-day period or a reasonable time thereafter. The court further determined that the plaintiff's delay substantially prejudiced the City's ability to defend the action and that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the significant delay, noting that infancy alone without a demonstrated nexus to the delay was insufficient.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawActual Knowledge RequirementPrejudice to MunicipalityReasonable Excuse for DelayInfancyPersonal InjuryMedical Malpractice AllegationAppellate ReviewMunicipal Negligence
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rechenberger v. Nassau County Medical Center

Edward Rechenberger suffered hip fractures and underwent two operations at Nassau County Medical Center in May 1982. Following a re-injury and later diagnosis, he learned the surgical hardware was improperly implanted, leading to further operations. Mr. Rechenberger sought leave to serve a late notice of claim against the medical center. The Supreme Court initially denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the hospital had actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim within the statutory 90-day period through its own medical records. The court concluded that the delay in serving the notice of claim was not substantially prejudicial to the hospital, and thus, granted the petitioners leave to serve the late notice of claim.

Medical MalpracticeLate Notice of ClaimNassau CountyHip FractureSurgical ErrorContinuous Treatment DoctrineActual NoticePrejudiceAppellate ReviewMunicipal Corporation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

Mitchell v. SUNY Upstate Medical University

Plaintiff Robbie Mitchell sued SUNY Upstate Medical Center for alleged Title VII violations, including race discrimination and retaliation, after experiencing a series of adverse employment actions. These actions included reassignment, disciplinary notices (NODs), a mandatory medical examination, a formal counseling memorandum, a verbal dispute, and eventual termination. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for most claims and that their actions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The court granted summary judgment in favor of SUNY Upstate Medical Center, concluding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of discrimination or that retaliation was the but-for cause of the challenged employment actions, and consequently, the case was closed.

Title VIICivil Rights ActEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkWorkplace ConductDisciplinary ActionPaid Administrative Leave
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Vlack v. Ternullo

The petitioners, maintenance workers and teachers at Fishkill Correctional Facility, were accused of violating Civil Service Law § 210 for refusing out-of-title emergency assignments during a correction officers' strike. A hearing officer sustained this determination, finding they condoned the job action and failed to prove a bona fide fear of personal injury or reprisals. However, the court annulled this determination, concluding it was not supported by substantial evidence. Testimony revealed picketing correction officers prevented petitioners from reporting to assignments through verbal harassment, abuse, and threats. This, coupled with inmates' support for strikers, created a genuine fear of physical violence, future reprisals, and lack of inmate protection. The court held that refusing assignments due to such a bona fide fear does not constitute a Taylor Law violation.

CPLR Article 78Civil Service LawTaylor LawPublic EmployeesStrikeOut-of-Title AssignmentsFear of InjuryReprisalsSubstantial EvidenceAnnulled Determination
References
4
Case No. ADJ7779326
Regular
Nov 26, 2012

MICHAEL MOSER vs. VALLI CONSTRUCTION, OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and found that the defendant's initial petition for reconsideration was timely filed, rescinding the prior order of dismissal. The Board affirmed the WCJ's original findings that the applicant is entitled to temporary disability benefits from March 1, 2012, and continuing. This ruling was based on the determination that the applicant's second spinal surgery constituted a bona fide medical emergency, exempting it from the usual pre-authorization and second opinion requirements. Therefore, the defendant's petition for reconsideration was ultimately denied.

WCABReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary Disability IndemnitySpinal SurgeryUtilization ReviewSecond OpinionBona Fide Medical EmergencyLabor Code Section 4062(b)AD Rule 9788.01(l)(4)
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 8,861 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