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

In re Bryan L.

This case concerns a neglect petition filed on August 3, 1990, against A. M. L. and U. L. for the alleged neglect of their infant son, Bryan L. The petition stemmed from an incident of domestic violence on July 16, 1990, where U. L. allegedly assaulted A. M. L., resulting in injuries including a broken rib, while Bryan L. was present. The court found A. M. L.'s testimony not credible and concluded that U. L. did strike A. M. L. on multiple occasions, including the July 16th incident where Bryan L. was in the vicinity. Despite these findings, the court dismissed the petition for neglect, concluding that there was insufficient proof of actual impairment or imminent danger of impairment to the child's physical, mental, or emotional condition as required by Family Court Act § 1012 (f) (i), especially without expert testimony regarding the effect of witnessing domestic violence on an infant.

Child NeglectDomestic ViolenceFamily Court ActImminent DangerPhysical ImpairmentEmotional ImpairmentFact-Finding HearingWitness TestimonyCredibility AssessmentExpert Testimony
References
5
Case No. ADJ1142998 (RDG 0118288)
Regular
Aug 18, 2009

STEVE REYNOLDS vs. WYCKOFF LOGGING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB had previously rescinded a finding that avascular necrosis was not a compensable consequence of the applicant's injury, finding the relied-upon medical opinion speculative. The defendant argues the WCJ correctly favored the opinion of Dr. Glancz over Dr. Barber. The WCAB denied reconsideration, reaffirming that Dr. Glancz's opinion was not substantial evidence due to repeated questioning of the injury mechanism, while Dr. Barber's opinion was persuasive and based on a complete history. Therefore, the WCAB maintained its prior decision that Dr. Barber's opinion constituted substantial evidence supporting the applicant's claim.

Avascular necrosiscompensable consequencesubstantial evidencemedical opinionworkers' compensation administrative law judgereconsiderationfindings and ordermedical treatmentindustrial basissubstantial evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Scarpullo v. Alba Barber Shop

The claimant, a barber, appealed a decision by the Workmen’s Compensation Board which dismissed his claim for a detached retina. He alleged the injury occurred in September 1958 when he struck his eye on a barber chair headrest. Despite Dr. Jaffe's testimony suggesting a causal link, the Board found the claim to be an 'afterthought' and rejected the claimant's testimony regarding the accident. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that issues of credibility are within the Board's discretion and they were not legally bound to accept the claimant's account.

Detached RetinaBarber InjuryEmployment InjuryCausal RelationshipCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionMedical EvidenceOccupational AccidentWorkmen's Compensation Board Decision
References
4
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02202 [193 AD3d 1202]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2021

Matter of Barber v. County of Cortland

Richard J. Barber, a correction officer, sustained work-related injuries, including to his jaw, post-concussive syndrome, and photophobia, after being assaulted by an inmate. His claim for workers' compensation benefits was established, and a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) later amended the claim to include a head injury, finding him totally industrially disabled. The self-insured employer, County of Cortland, sought review from the Workers' Compensation Board, challenging the total industrial disability finding. However, the Board denied the application for review due to the employer's failure to fully answer question 15 on form RB-89, specifically regarding the temporal element of the objection raised. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the application for review due to non-compliance with regulatory requirements.

Workers' CompensationIndustrial DisabilityForm RB-89Administrative ReviewRegulatory ComplianceAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentSelf-insured EmployerObjection TimelinessWorkers' Compensation Board
References
17
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,354 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