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

Ellis v. Peter

This case addresses whether a physician owes a duty of care which extends to a patient's spouse who contracts tuberculosis due to the physician's alleged negligent failure to properly diagnose the disease in the patient. The plaintiffs, John and Joan Ellis, sued Dr. Sebastian A. Peter for medical malpractice. The wife, Joan Ellis, alleged negligence for failure to warn her about her husband's infectious condition. The court held that New York State law does not impose a statutory or common-law duty upon a physician for the benefit of those who may contract such a disease from the patient, as a physician's duty is ordinarily owed to the patient, not the community at large. Therefore, the order was reversed, the plaintiffs' motion to strike defenses was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the wife's second and fourth causes of action was granted.

medical malpracticephysician's duty of carenegligencecommunicable diseasetuberculosisforeseeabilitystatutory dutycommon lawpatient spousezone of risk
References
21
Case No. 1:08-cv-00470-RJA-LGF
Regular Panel Decision

Ellis v. Colvin

Rachelle M. Ellis, represented by counsel, brought an action under the Social Security Act to review the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB). The case involved a complex procedural history with multiple administrative hearings and remands. The District Court identified significant errors by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), including the failure to comply with an Appeals Council remand order to obtain medical expert testimony and a mischaracterization of medical evidence regarding Ellis's residual functional capacity (RFC). Specifically, the ALJ ignored restrictions on repetitive hand movements, which, according to vocational expert testimony, would eliminate all available sedentary jobs. Finding persuasive proof of disability and further proceedings unnecessary, the Court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the matter for the calculation and payment of benefits to Ellis.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsResidual Functional CapacityAdministrative Law Judge ErrorRemand for BenefitsMedical Expert TestimonyCervical StenosisRepetitive Motion RestrictionMental ImpairmentPhysical Impairment
References
34
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05820
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2019

Matter of Ellis v. First Student, Inc.

Claimant, Kevin Ellis, a school bus driver, sustained work-related injuries in November 2014 when struck by a vehicle. His initial claim for workers' compensation benefits was established for injuries to his back, left hip, and left knee. The Workers' Compensation Board later amended the claim to include causally-related injuries to his right knee and right shoulder, based on medical evidence and testimony. The employer and its carrier appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that the injuries to the right knee and right shoulder were causally related to the work accident, crediting the testimony of orthopedist Charles Peralo over the conflicting opinion of physician Harvey Siegel.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related InjuryRight KneeRight ShoulderSchool Bus DriverSubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyCredibilityAppellate ReviewAmendment of Claim
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kenneth S. v. Berkshire Farm Center & Services for Youth

Kayla S., a 15-year-old under supervision, was admitted to Ellis Hospital, where Ray Kuykendall, a social worker, visited her against hospital rules. After her discharge, Kayla absconded from a different facility and allegedly endured abuse by Kuykendall for four months. Her parents sued Ellis Hospital, alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Supreme Court denied Ellis Hospital's motion to dismiss this claim. On appeal, the court reversed the lower court's decision, determining that Ellis Hospital’s actions did not unreasonably endanger Kayla’s physical safety. Furthermore, the court found that Kuykendall’s subsequent criminal assault constituted an independent act, breaking the necessary causal link between the hospital's alleged negligence and Kayla's injuries. Consequently, Ellis Hospital’s motion to dismiss the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim was granted.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligenceCausation BreakIntervening ActMotion to DismissHospital NegligenceMinor ProtectionSocial Worker MalpracticeAppellate ProcedureDuty of Care Scope
References
12
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. ADJ6624664; ADJ6624781
Regular
Jul 19, 2011

WALTER ELLIS vs. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the WCJ's decision, which found that applicant Walter Ellis failed to prove his claimed injuries arose out of and in the course of employment. The Board adopted the WCJ's report explaining that Ellis' petition for reconsideration was deficient, lacking proper service and verification. Furthermore, the WCJ properly denied Ellis' request for reassignment, as trial had already commenced and the claimed bias was not substantiated. Finally, the WCJ found no violation of Labor Code section 132a, as there was no evidence the employer discriminated against Ellis due to a workers' compensation claim.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJAOE-COELC 132aDiscriminationProof of ServiceVerificationJudicial BiasEx Parte Communication
References
5
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

Ellis v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n, Local 1000

Patrick P. Ellis, a self-described “dissident” member of the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA), brought suit against the union for alleged violations of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). Ellis challenged the union's de facto council status and a dues increase approved by delegates, claiming both violated his equal rights and LMRDA provisions for local unions. The court dismissed Ellis's equal rights claim related to the affiliation agreement as time-barred and his claim concerning the by-law amendment for failure to allege discrimination. Converting the motion to dismiss the dues increase claim to one for summary judgment, the court found CSEA functions as an intermediate labor organization, making the delegate vote on dues lawful. Consequently, the court granted defendant's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, and denied plaintiff's motions for a preliminary injunction and consolidation.

Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActUnion GovernanceDues IncreaseLabor Organization ClassificationStatute of LimitationsLegal StandingUnion Members' RightsPreliminary InjunctionSummary Judgment MotionMotion to Dismiss
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 1,370 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