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

Fleming v. MaxMara USA, Inc.

Plaintiff Yvonne Fleming, an African-American woman and former Director of Human Resources and Payroll for MaxMara USA, Inc., sued her employer and two individual supervisors, John Gleeson and Luigi Caroggio, alleging race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the New York City Human Rights Law. Fleming claimed that Gleeson made a racially charged comment, and both Gleeson and Caroggio subjected her to poor treatment and derogatory remarks. She also asserted retaliation after reporting alleged preferential treatment of Italian employees. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Fleming's termination, including performance issues and failure to follow company protocols. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims, finding that Fleming failed to establish a prima facie case for race discrimination (partially due to being replaced by another African-American woman), that the hostile work environment claims lacked sufficient severity or pervasiveness or were time-barred, and that the retaliation claims did not overcome the defendants' legitimate business reasons.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIINew York City Human Rights LawSummary Judgment MotionAdverse Employment ActionPrima Facie CasePretext
References
63
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 24162 [84 Misc 3d 931]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2024

James Riv. Group Holdings, Ltd. v. Fleming Intermediate Holdings LLC

The case, James River Group Holdings, Ltd. v Fleming Intermediate Holdings LLC, addresses a dispute over a stock purchase agreement (SPA) for the sale of James River's reinsurance subsidiary, JRG Re, to Fleming. Fleming refused to close the transaction, citing alleged breaches related to JRG Re's reserves and liquidity, and demanded a $78 million concession. James River sought specific performance through a mandatory preliminary injunction, arguing that Fleming's claims were baseless and contrary to the SPA's terms, particularly a clause prohibiting challenges to reserves and outlining a post-closing price adjustment process. The Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Masley, granted James River's motion, finding a clear likelihood of success on the merits, established irreparable harm due to reputational damage and operational disruption, and a favorable balance of equities, compelling Fleming to close the deal within 10 days.

Specific PerformanceStock Purchase AgreementBreach of ContractPreliminary InjunctionMandatory InjunctionContract InterpretationIrreparable HarmBalance of EquitiesReinsurance SubsidiaryClosing Conditions
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fleming v. Verizon New York, Inc.

Plaintiff Bianca Fleming sued her former employer, Verizon New York, Inc., for employment discrimination under Title VII, ADA, HRL, and NYCHRL. Fleming alleged racial and gender discrimination, a sexually hostile work environment, and failure to accommodate her medical condition from 1998 to 2001. She also claimed retaliation for her complaints. Verizon moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on grounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and statute of limitations. The court granted Verizon's motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing certain Title VII claims for retaliation and hostile work environment, and dismissing other claims as time-barred, while allowing specific continuing violation claims to proceed.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationGender DiscriminationSexually Hostile Work EnvironmentDisability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActTitle VII Civil Rights ActNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawAdministrative Exhaustion
References
46
Case No. ADJ2903398 (BAK 0150336)
Regular
Feb 27, 2012

ERIC FLEMING, Deceased GINGER FLEMING vs. KENAI DRILLING, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Eric Fleming's widow, Ginger Fleming, as the applicant in a workers' compensation claim against Kenai Drilling and its insurer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant. The board also noted that no lien for attorney Hildreth's services had been filed, nor had a Petition for Costs.

Petition for RemovalWCJ reportlienWCABLabor Code section 5811Petition for Costsprejudiceirreparable harmworkers' compensationdeceased
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fleming v. Graham

This case addresses whether plaintiff Cedric Fleming's facial injuries, specifically scars on his forehead and right upper eyelid, constitute a "permanent and severe facial disfigurement" under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, qualifying as a "grave injury." Fleming, an employee of Pinstripes Garment Services, LLC, sustained these injuries in a collision with a school bus. He sued Evergreen Bus Service, Inc., and its driver, who then initiated a third-party action against Pinstripes for indemnity/contribution, claiming Fleming's injuries were "grave." Supreme Court denied Pinstripes' summary judgment motion, but the Appellate Division affirmed, finding factual questions. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed, establishing a standard for "severe facial disfigurement" which requires the injury to greatly alter the face's appearance and be regarded as "abhorrently distressing, highly objectionable, shocking or extremely unsightly" by a reasonable person. Applying this standard, the Court found that Fleming's injuries, despite numerous scars and some permanency, did not meet the "severe" disfigurement threshold, thereby granting Pinstripes' motion for summary judgment.

Workers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryFacial DisfigurementPermanent InjurySevere InjuryThird-Party ActionCommon-Law IndemnityContributionSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
16
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,330 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