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. 161063/19, 5782, 2024-06151
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2026

Contreras v. City of New York

Plaintiff Roger J. Contreras was injured by a falling chisel during a coffee break at a construction site in New York. He sued the City of New York and others under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 200, and 241(6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim but allowed amendment of his bill of particulars to include Industrial Code violations. It also dismissed the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Contreras's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, asserting that a worker on break is still protected and that the defective scaffolding was inadequate, regardless of the exact cause or origin of the falling object. The court found that the arguments related to common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) claims were academic due to the grant of summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1).

Falling ObjectScaffolding DefectLabor Law § 240(1) ClaimSummary Judgment GrantConstruction Site InjuryCoffee Break AccidentIndustrial Code ViolationsAppellate Division DecisionWorker SafetyNegligence Dismissal
References
5
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. 213 AD3d 601
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2023

Contreras v. Mall 1-Bay Plaza, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning claims for contribution and indemnification against a third-party defendant, Electrical Illuminations by Arnold Inc., by Mall 1-Bay Plaza, LLC, the third-party plaintiff. The claims arose from an injury sustained by the plaintiff, Julio Contreras. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the third-party defendant's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding the claims barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The court concluded that there was no allegation of a 'grave injury' and no written contract for indemnification or contribution was entered into prior to the accident with retroactive effect. Additionally, the claim for breach of contract for failure to procure insurance was also dismissed.

Workers' Compensation LawIndemnification AgreementContribution ClaimsGrave InjuryRetroactive ContractBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewContract Interpretation
References
6
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. ADJ9782943
Regular
Jan 20, 2016

Felix Contreras vs. County of Fresno

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Felix Contreras' petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found that Contreras' injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment due to the "Going and Coming Rule." The judge found Contreras' testimony regarding his actions at the time of the accident lacked credibility, citing conflicting accounts and evidence that the stated work purpose was already completed. The Board gave great weight to the judge's credibility determinations due to observing the witness demeanor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Going and Coming RuleCourse and Scope of EmploymentCredibility DeterminationsApplicant TestimonyEmployer TestimonyPrior Findings of Fact
References
1
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. ADJ1622633 (VEN 0115623)
Regular
May 15, 2012

SALVADOR CONTRERAS vs. M&C FARM LABOR, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, INTERCARE PASADENA, PAULA INSURANCE

This case involves Salvador Contreras's petition to reopen his workers' compensation claim for new and further disability. The original claim was venued in Ventura/Oxnard, but Contreras filed his reopen petition in Los Angeles. The WCJ denied the petition based on former WCAB Rule 10390, which required filing in the proper district office and did not excuse non-compliance for filing in an incorrect office. The Court of Appeal, however, reversed this decision, holding that current WCAB Rule 10397, which allows filing in any office, applied as a procedural change. The Court also found that even under former Rule 10390, Contreras demonstrated excusable neglect, thus compelling the WCAB to grant reconsideration and return the case for a decision on the merits.

RemittiturPetition to ReopenStatute of LimitationsLabor Code 5410Labor Code 5804WCAB Rule 10390WCAB Rule 10397Excusable NeglectNew and Further DisabilityCourt of Appeal
References
12
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