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. ADJ963026
Regular
Apr 30, 2013

BRODERICK CRAWFORD vs. AC TRANSIT, GATES MCDONALD

This case involves applicant Broderick Crawford's claim for continuing temporary total disability benefits following a 2000 work injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision. The ALJ found Dr. Blackwell's medical opinion to be more persuasive than Dr. Auerbach's, and this constituted substantial evidence to support the award of benefits. The Board affirmed that a single physician's well-reasoned opinion can be sufficient evidence, even if it conflicts with other medical evaluations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAC TransitGates McDonaldBroderick CrawfordPetition for ReconsiderationReport of WCJsubstantial evidencephysician opiniontemporary total disabilitybilateral hips
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1999

Faele v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Rosemary Faele, a nurse at Coney Island Hospital, sustained an eye irritation and received brief examinations from defendants Dr. Barry Eppinger and Dr. An-nan Das in the hospital's emergency room. Her condition worsened, and she was later diagnosed with a severe eye infection by a private ophthalmologist. Though compensated via Workers' Compensation, Faele and her husband initiated a medical malpractice action against the doctors and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint by granting summary judgment to the defendants. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that a sufficient nexus existed between Faele's employment and the alleged malpractice, thereby precluding a common-law malpractice claim and limiting her recourse to Workers' Compensation.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' Compensation PreclusionSummary Judgment AffirmationEmployment-Related InjuryHospital LiabilityEmergency Medical TreatmentAppellate Division DecisionPersonal InjuryDoctor-Patient NexusConey Island Hospital
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. New York Hospital

Plaintiff, a registered nurse, filed an action under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against The New York Hospital, its President Dr. David Skinner, and Assistant Director of Nursing Mr. Jody Sklar, alleging unlawful employment termination due to an alcoholism relapse. The plaintiff objected to a protective order preventing Dr. Skinner's deposition, while defendants sought to dismiss claims against individual defendants. The court granted dismissal against Mr. Sklar but denied it for Dr. Skinner, finding that individuals responsible for discriminatory decisions can be liable under the Act, especially those in positions to accept federal funds. Consequently, the protective order against deposing Dr. Skinner was set aside.

Rehabilitation Actemployment discriminationdisability rightsalcoholismindividual liabilitycorporate responsibilityprotective orderdiscoverymotion to dismiss
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rafiy v. Nassau County Medical Center

Dr. M. Pierre Rafiy and Dr. Philip Rafiy (the Rafiys) initiated a civil action against Nassau County Medical Center, Nassau County, Dr. Bruce Meinhard, and Dr. Anthony Angelo. Their claims, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Sherman Act, included deprivation of hospital privileges without due process, racial discrimination, and retaliation for exercising free speech rights. The Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the revoked assignments were not protected property interests and the Rafiys failed to exhaust state remedies. They also contended that the Rafiys' speech was not protected under the First Amendment and that evidence for discrimination was lacking. The court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all counts, concluding that no constitutional violations occurred and that the Rafiys' antitrust claim had been withdrawn.

Civil RightsDue ProcessFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionRacial DiscriminationRetaliationHospital PrivilegesSummary JudgmentSherman ActAntitrust
References
29
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

Roginsky v. County of Suffolk, NY

Plaintiff Dr. Martin Roginsky filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the County of Suffolk, alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York State Executive Law. Roginsky, a physician, was constructively discharged from his Staff Physician role at the Suffolk County Jail. He claims the termination was due to his age, citing remarks made by Dr. Gerazi, the Medical Director of the Jail, and that the County used a prescription-writing issue as a pretext. The County moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting it was not Roginsky's employer and that age was not the 'but for' cause of his discharge. The Court denied the County's motion to dismiss, finding that Roginsky had plausibly alleged an employment relationship with the County and satisfied the 'but for' causation standard for his ADEA claim. Consequently, the Court also decided to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationADEAMotion to DismissConstructive DischargeEmployer-Employee RelationshipBut-For CausationPleading StandardsFederal Civil ProcedureNew York Law
References
24
Case No. ADJ7877096
Regular
Jan 23, 2017

OGANES KARDZHYAN vs. DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, CHARTIS INSURANCE CO./AIG CLAIM SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, finding the WCJ failed to address the substantiality of Dr. Pietruszka's opinion regarding industrial causation for psoriatic arthritis, diabetes, and headaches. The Board amended the WCJ's findings to include previously established injuries and returned the matter for further proceedings. The WCJ is directed to consider Dr. Pietruszka's opinion and develop the record on orthopedic injuries. This decision is not final and allows for future reconsideration of the WCJ's new ruling.

Petition for ReconsiderationMedical OpinionPsoriatic ArthritisDiabetesHeadachesIndustrially CausedSubstantial Medical EvidenceDevelop the RecordOrthopedic InjuriesPsyche
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacK v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Plaintiff Michael Mack sued The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Dr. Scott Bergman for racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination under 42 U.S.C. sections 1981 and 1983, and New York Executive Law section 296. Mack, an African-American employee, alleged his supervisor, Iannacone, and Dr. Bergman subjected him to racial jokes, disparate treatment, and a hostile work environment. Mack was terminated after failing a drug test and refusing to provide a second urine sample, which he claimed was racially motivated. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing all claims, finding that Mack failed to demonstrate a municipal policy or custom for the Port Authority's liability and did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of wrongful termination or a racially hostile work environment. Additionally, state law claims were dismissed as New York anti-discrimination laws do not apply to the bi-state Port Authority.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Port AuthorityBi-State AgencyMunicipal LiabilityDrug Testing
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McBarnette v. Feldman

This case addresses proceedings initiated by the New York Attorney-General on behalf of the Department of Health (DOH) and by an individual patient, Gail Eileen Strouse, following the death of Dr. Philip Feldman, a dentist who succumbed to AIDS. The DOH sought to compel the administrator of Dr. Feldman's estate to release patient records for an epidemiological study into potential HIV transmission, a request the estate opposed citing physician-patient privilege and confidentiality laws. The court granted the DOH's motion, ruling that public health interests and DOH's statutory authority for investigations supersede these objections, with assurances of confidentiality for the data. Concurrently, Ms. Strouse's attempts to intervene in the DOH action, consolidate her separate tort claim against the estate, and certify it as a class action were all denied, as her individual claims and proof requirements were deemed distinct and unsuitable for such treatment.

Public Health LawHIV/AIDS ConfidentialityPhysician-Patient PrivilegeSubpoena Duces TecumEpidemiological StudyClass Action DenialCase Consolidation DenialInfected Healthcare WorkerMedical Records AccessPatient Data Disclosure
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mamakos v. Huntington Hospital

Plaintiff, Dr. Mamakos, a plastic surgeon, sued Huntington Hospital and several doctors for antitrust violations (Sherman Act sections 1 and 2), unfair competition, and breach of contract, after being removed from the emergency room on-call roster. This removal stemmed from complaints about his excessive fees. Although his staff privileges were initially threatened, he remained on staff; only his on-call privilege was affected. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the activities did not substantially affect interstate commerce. The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient nexus with interstate commerce for the antitrust claims, and consequently dismissed the pendent state claims as well.

AntitrustSherman ActHospital PrivilegesMedical StaffOn-Call RosterPhysician FeesInterstate CommerceSubject-Matter JurisdictionDismissalGroup Boycott
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 1,319 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