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
Aug 20, 2012

Pooler v. Nassau University Medical Center

Plaintiff Keith Pooler, an inmate, sued Nassau Health Care Corporation (NHCC), Dr. Bruce David, and Joseph Farhangian for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pooler alleged he was denied anxiety and sleeping disorder medication, leading to a severe anxiety attack and suicide attempt. Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies and lack of deliberate indifference. The Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing Pooler's failure to exhaust remedies and finding no deliberate indifference. Consequently, federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and state law claims without prejudice.

Prisoner Medical CareDeliberate IndifferenceEighth AmendmentSuicide AttemptMental Health ServicesSummary JudgmentExhaustion of Administrative RemediesPrison Litigation Reform Act42 U.S.C. Section 1983Pro Se Litigation
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R.T. v. Gross

Plaintiff, an incarcerated individual with a history of psychiatric issues, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that various correctional facility medical staff were deliberately indifferent to his serious psychiatric needs. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the Court granted. The Court found no verifiable evidence that any alleged lack of treatment caused Plaintiff substantial harm or a worse lifelong prognosis, noting his post-incarceration stabilization. Even assuming a serious medical need, the Court concluded that Defendants responded to acute episodes and did not act with deliberate indifference. Consequently, the Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.

Prisoner RightsEighth AmendmentDeliberate IndifferenceSerious Medical NeedsPsychiatric CareBipolar DisorderSummary JudgmentCorrectional FacilityMental Health Satellite UnitQualified Immunity
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Sheridan

Plaintiff, an inmate, sued defendants Wayne Crosier and Randall Lodge under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law negligence for alleged failure to treat a fractured fibula sustained during a use-of-force incident. Plaintiff claimed deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and negligence in not discovering his injury earlier. The Court found plaintiff was uncooperative and belligerent, rebuffing medical staff, and that his injury was not immediately apparent. The Court concluded that neither defendant acted with deliberate indifference nor were negligent, as they lacked knowledge of the injury and took reasonable steps to monitor plaintiff's condition, ultimately dismissing the complaint.

InmatePrison medical careConstitutional rightsDeliberate indifferenceSection 1983NegligenceEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentCorrectional officersMental health treatment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2007

Streeter v. Goord

This pro se action, filed by inmate Leon Streeter under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, specifically concerning his sickle cell anemia and the management of his port-a-cath, by several correctional and medical personnel. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York adopted a Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, which found that the plaintiff failed to establish deliberate indifference by any of the named defendants. The court concluded that while plaintiff experienced pain, the medical care provided, including prescribed medications and surgical consultations, did not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the entire action was dismissed.

42 U.S.C. § 1983Eighth AmendmentDeliberate IndifferenceMedical NeedsPrisoner RightsSickle Cell AnemiaSummary JudgmentMagistrate JudgeReport-RecommendationPort-a-cath
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Breland v. Abate

Plaintiff Vincent Breland sued various correctional officials and the City of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for injuries sustained from other inmates while in pretrial detention. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff could not prove deliberate indifference. The Court found that Breland failed to demonstrate more than mere negligence against the individual officers (Lawrence and Chavies) regarding their actions during the inmate altercation. Consequently, the derivative Monell claims against the City, based on the officers' alleged deliberate indifference and the City's purported failure to ensure inmate security, also failed. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Civil Rights42 U.S.C. § 1983Deliberate IndifferenceSummary JudgmentCorrectional FacilitiesInmate SafetyMonell ClaimMunicipal LiabilityState Law ClaimsSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
18
Case No. ECF No. 18
Regular Panel Decision

Alexander v. State University of New York at Buffalo

Plaintiff, a hearing-impaired student, sued the State University of New York at Buffalo for failing to provide reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. She alleged the university did not provide a functional FM system, a verbatim transcript service (CART), or adequate note-takers, leading her to withdraw. The university moved for summary judgment, arguing sovereign immunity for ADA claims and denying deliberate indifference for the Section 504 claim. The court found that New York waived sovereign immunity for Section 504 claims by accepting federal funds post-Garcia. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling that material issues of fact existed regarding deliberate indifference.

Americans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActDisability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationHearing ImpairmentSummary JudgmentDeliberate IndifferenceSovereign ImmunityPublic ServicesHigher Education
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. Selsky

This is a pro se prisoner action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following a remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, this Court reinstated the plaintiff's complaint, except for a malicious prosecution claim. Defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment on all remaining claims, which included allegations of due process violations, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, mail tampering, retaliation, and conspiracy. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no constitutional violations. Specifically, the Court determined there was no denial of due process, no subjective awareness of suicide risk for deliberate indifference, no actual injury from alleged mail tampering, no constitutionally protected speech for the retaliation claim, and insufficient class-based animus for the conspiracy claim. Consequently, all of plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

Civil RightsPrisoner RightsSummary JudgmentDue ProcessDeliberate IndifferenceEighth AmendmentFirst AmendmentRetaliationConspiracy42 U.S.C. § 1983
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flemming v. Wurzberger

Plaintiff Woodrow Flemming, an inmate, brought a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that medical professionals Bezalel Wurzberger, Timothy Kemp, and P.A. Louise Tichenor were deliberately indifferent to his serious psychiatric and mental health needs while he was confined at Upstate Correctional Facility in 2005, violating his Eighth Amendment rights. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the District Court granted, denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court concluded that Flemming's claims primarily represented a disagreement over appropriate treatment rather than a constitutional violation of deliberate indifference, emphasizing that mere negligence or malpractice does not constitute an Eighth Amendment claim. Additional claims by the plaintiff under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments were also dismissed for not being properly asserted or lacking evidentiary support.

Eighth AmendmentDeliberate IndifferenceMedical NeedsPrisoner RightsSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigantMental Health TreatmentCorrectional Facility42 U.S.C. § 1983Psychiatric Medication
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartry v. County of Suffolk

Plaintiff Kyle Hartry, a former inmate at the Suffolk County Correctional Facility (SCCF), brought an action against Sergeant Steven Lundquist and Suffolk County for personal injuries sustained in an attack by a fellow inmate on October 24, 2007. Hartry, a cooperating witness, alleged that the defendants failed to protect him and exhibited deliberate indifference to his safety in violation of his Constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and also asserted New York state-law negligence claims. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Hartry failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that the claims lacked merit, while Lundquist sought qualified immunity. The Court denied the defendants' motion in its entirety, finding triable issues of fact regarding deliberate indifference, the objective reasonableness of Lundquist's actions, and the foreseeability of the attack under state law.

Prisoner RightsDeliberate IndifferenceFailure to ProtectSummary JudgmentQualified ImmunityEighth AmendmentPrison Litigation Reform ActNegligenceInmate AttackCooperating Witness
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matthews Ex Rel. Matthews v. Armitage

In this Memorandum-Decision and Order, the court addresses motions filed by defendants Daniel Senkowski and William Costello following a jury verdict that awarded nominal damages of one dollar against them. The case originated from an incident on August 21, 1991, at Clinton Correctional Facility, where inmate Frederick Matthews was stabbed by another inmate, Aaron Breaziel, while both were in involuntary protective custody. Matthews's widow continued the action after his death from unrelated causes in 1994. Defendants sought to amend the judgment to remove David B. Armitage, for whom the jury found no liability, and for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b). The court granted the motion to amend the judgment, deleting the entry against Armitage. Furthermore, the court granted the motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Matthews's safety, as required for an Eighth Amendment claim. Additionally, the court found the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the incident in 1991, the legal standard for deliberate indifference regarding an inmate's general propensity for violence was not clearly established in the Second Circuit.

Eighth AmendmentPrisoner RightsFailure to ProtectDeliberate IndifferenceQualified ImmunityJudgment as a Matter of LawFed.R.Civ.P. 50(b)Inmate AssaultClinton Correctional FacilityCorrectional Services
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 169 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