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 11, 2012

Gullo v. Bellhaven Center for Geriatric & Rehabilitative Care, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding an employee, Lenny Gullo, who sued his employer, Bellhaven Center, for damages stemming from a delayed diagnosis of Hepatitis C. Gullo underwent a routine blood test in 2005 which tested positive for the Hepatitis C antibody, but he was only informed of this condition in 2009. Along with his wife and daughter, Gullo commenced an action alleging damages due to the delayed diagnosis caused by the employer's failure to disclose test results. The Supreme Court initially granted Bellhaven's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Workers' Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing that the Workers’ Compensation Board holds primary jurisdiction over issues of compensation coverage. The matter was remitted back to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a new determination following a resolution by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding the parties' rights.

Primary JurisdictionHepatitis CDelayed DiagnosisPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRemittalEmployer LiabilityMedical Test ResultsSuffolk County Supreme Court
References
8
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00118 [190 AD3d 489]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2021

Henry v. Split Rock Rehabilitation & Health Care Ctr., LLC

Plaintiff Ian Henry, an HVAC technician, was injured on January 24, 2014, at Split Rock Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, LLC, when a circuit breaker allegedly exploded. He was inspecting a newly installed rooftop air conditioning unit and was escorted to an electrical room by a Split Rock employee. Split Rock moved for summary judgment, arguing Henry's failure to turn off the power caused the incident, but Henry testified the power was already off. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied the motion, finding unresolved factual issues regarding the accident's cause and whether the risks were readily observable. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding that material issues of fact remained for trial.

Summary JudgmentHVAC TechnicianWorkplace AccidentCircuit Breaker ExplosionMaterial Issues of FactObservable RisksNegligenceThird-Party DefendantAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2014

Forest Rehabilitation Medicine PC v. Allstate Insurance

Plaintiff Forest Rehabilitation Medicine PC sued defendant Allstate to recover $3,490 for no-fault medical benefits provided to assignor Tracy Fertitta. The core issue was the medical necessity of "Calmare pain therapy" (scrambler therapy), a novel treatment. The court conducted a bench trial, hearing expert testimony from both sides. Dr. Ayman Hadhoud, for the defense, argued the treatment was not medically necessary, not cost-effective, and essentially a form of physical therapy. Dr. Jack D’Angelo, for the plaintiff, countered that the therapy, though new, had FDA approval, was used by the military, and reduced the assignor's pain levels. Applying the Frye standard, the court found the evidence regarding Calmare scrambler therapy reliable and ruled it was medically necessary for Ms. Fertitta's pain management. Consequently, judgment was awarded to the plaintiff, Forest Rehabilitation Medicine PC, for $3,490 plus attorney's fees and interest.

No-Fault InsuranceMedical NecessityCalmare Pain TherapyScrambler TherapyNovel TreatmentFrye StandardExpert TestimonyPain ManagementFDA ApprovalCervical Radiculopathy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2000

Pain Resource Center v. Travelers Insurance

This case addresses a dispute regarding the payment of first-party no-fault benefits to a health provider, Pain Resource Center, as the assignee of John Hiotis, who was injured in an auto accident. The defendant, Travelers Ins. Co., challenged the validity of the assignment and the necessity of the medical services provided. The court affirmed the validity of the assignment under New York's Insurance Law and related regulations. However, based on conflicting expert testimonies, the court limited the compensable medical services to six hours and awarded the plaintiff $566.10, along with statutory interest and attorney's fees.

No-Fault InsuranceFirst-Party BenefitsAssignment ValidityMedical ServicesPeer ReviewInsurance LawHealth Provider ClaimAutomobile AccidentDamagesStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06056
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 2017

Aponte v. Clove Lakes Health Care & Rehabilitation Center, Inc.

The plaintiffs, Blanche Aponte et al., appealed from an order denying their motion to strike the defendant's answer for spoliation of evidence and for summary judgment on liability. The case stemmed from a personal injury claim where Blanche Aponte was allegedly injured by a collapsing bed at the defendant's facility in 2013. The plaintiffs commenced the action two years later, by which time the defendant claimed the bed had been inspected, found fit, and reinserted into use, making it unidentifiable. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the defendant had prior notice of the claim to warrant sanctions for spoliation, as the bed was discarded pursuant to normal business practices before litigation began.

spoliation of evidencesummary judgmentpersonal injurynotice of claimappellate reviewproperty damagebusiness practicespreservation of evidencecivil procedurenegligent destruction
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06800
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2021

Harris v. Pelham Parkway Nursing Care & Rehabilitation Facility LLC

Plaintiff Mariantha Harris appealed an order from Supreme Court, Bronx County, denying her cross motion for summary judgment dismissing an affirmative defense based on the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the order, granting Harris's cross motion. Harris successfully established prima facie that she was not an employee of Pelham Parkway Nursing Care and Rehabilitation Facility LLC at the time of her accident, but rather was solely employed by nonparty Clear Choice, P.C. The defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim that Harris was its special employee, with its reliance solely on the plaintiff performing duties at its nursing home being insufficient. Additionally, the court found the doctrine of judicial estoppel inapplicable because plaintiff had not secured a judgment in her favor in the prior proceeding, and the defendant's prematurity argument was improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

Summary JudgmentExclusive RemedyEmployment StatusSpecial EmployeeSlip and FallJudicial EstoppelAppellate ProcedureCross MotionAffirmative DefenseClear Choice P.C.
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Uptown Health Care Management, Inc.

Plaintiffs GEICO allege a scheme where defendants, including Uptown Health Care Management d/b/a East Tremont, Hisham Elzanaty, Alan Goldenberg, Dr. Hisham Ahmed, and Dr. Jadwiga Pawlowski, fraudulently billed GEICO for millions in services. GEICO contends East Tremont was ineligible for reimbursement under New York's no-fault insurance laws, operating without a legitimate medical director, violating its operating certificate, and paying kickbacks for referrals. The complaint raises six causes of action, including declaratory judgment, RICO violations (18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c), 1962(d)), common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and unjust enrichment. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for Burford abstention and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, arguing GEICO's claims would invalidate a DOH license and interfere with state oversight. Citing the similar Allstate Ins. v. Elzanaty action, the court denied defendants' motions, affirming that insurers can challenge fraudulent licensing and conduct under RICO and fraud claims, even if state authorities have approved the facility. The court concluded that such claims do not disrupt New York's regulatory scheme and need not be raised exclusively with the DOH or through an Article 78 proceeding.

Insurance FraudNo-Fault InsuranceRICO ActMedical LicensingHealthcare FraudAbstention DoctrineRule 12(b)(1) MotionRule 12(b)(6) MotionArticle 28 FacilitiesKickbacks
References
21
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07367 [211 AD3d 1582]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2022

Bregaudit v. Loretto Health & Rehabilitation Ctr.

Plaintiff Edison Bregaudit sought damages after slipping on ice at a facility owned by Loretto Health and Rehabilitation Center, which contracted Pro Scapes, Inc. for snow removal. Pro Scapes initially moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, a motion initially granted by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed parts of the lower court's decision. The Appellate Division found a question of fact existed regarding whether Pro Scapes negligently created or exacerbated the dangerous icy condition by using inadequate deicer, which could lead to refreezing. Consequently, the court denied parts of Pro Scapes' motion for summary judgment and reinstated the amended complaint and cross-claim for common-law indemnification against Pro Scapes.

Snow and IceSlip and FallPremises LiabilitySnow Removal ContractSummary JudgmentDuty of CareTort LiabilityExacerbated ConditionNegligenceRefreezing
References
16
Case No. ADJ9983579
Regular
Dec 26, 2017

Applicant vs. BROOKFIELD CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER, administered by YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

In **ADJ9983579**, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for removal from Brookfield Care and Rehabilitation Center. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Consequently, removal was deemed an extraordinary remedy not warranted in this case, and reconsideration was considered an adequate future remedy.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardYork Risk Services GroupBrookfield Care and Rehabilitation CenterCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Holliswood Care Center

Wilbert Davis sued Holliswood Care Center, Inc. and Local 1199, Drug, Hospital and Health Care Employee's Union under § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act. Davis challenged his discharge, alleging a violation of a collective bargaining agreement and a breach of fair representation by the union for not arbitrating his case, along with a state defamation claim. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were time-barred. The court granted summary judgment, finding Davis knew the union declined arbitration more than six months before filing suit. Consequently, the court dismissed both the federal and pendent state claims as time-barred under the six-month statute of limitations of § 10(b) of the NLRA.

Summary JudgmentTime-BarredStatute of LimitationsHybrid § 301/Fair Representation ClaimLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee DischargeDefamation
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 6,087 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