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

Holmes v. K & M Jewelry, Inc.

Nora Holmes, a retail sales clerk for Gimbels, Inc., sustained personal injuries when a display case owned by K & M Jewelry, Inc., fell. She received workers' compensation benefits from Gimbels and subsequently attempted to sue K & M Jewelry, Inc., for negligence. The core issue in this appeal was the validity of service of the summons and complaint upon K & M Jewelry, Inc. A special referee initially upheld the service, and the Supreme Court confirmed this report. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order, denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendant's cross-motion, finding that K & M Jewelry, Inc. was not properly served as the recipient, a 'Mrs. Kahn,' was not an authorized agent of the corporate defendant.

Service of ProcessCorporate ServicePersonal InjuryNegligenceWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewAgencyAuthorized AgentSummons and ComplaintJurisdiction
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holmes v. IBM

Cindy Holmes, an African-American woman, sued her employer IBM under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for racial discrimination, alleging she was repeatedly denied promotions from Band 3 to Band 4 despite her qualifications, while less qualified Caucasian co-workers were promoted. Holmes presented evidence of supervisors making race-related comments and other instances of disparate treatment, which she argued indicate discriminatory animus. IBM moved for summary judgment, contending Holmes could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination, nor could she prove their legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not promoting her were pretextual. The court, applying the McDonnell Douglas framework, found that Holmes had established a prima facie case and presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding pretext, including alleged discriminatory comments by supervisors. Therefore, the District Court denied IBM's motion for summary judgment.

DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentMcDonnell DouglasPretextPrima Facie CasePromotion Denial42 U.S.C. 1981District Court
References
22
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

Holmes v. Gaynor

Raymond Holmes, Jr., a former employee of the Village of Piermont, sued Defendants Thomas Gaynor, Dennis Hardy, and the Village, alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Holmes claimed selective prosecution regarding an illegal dumping scheme, termination without a pre-deprivation hearing, and defamation linked to his termination. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The Court found Holmes failed to present sufficient evidence for his selective prosecution and liberty interest claims, and that his termination, if it occurred, was pursuant to Civil Service Law Section 71, which does not require a pre-termination hearing. Therefore, the Defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the case was dismissed.

Summary JudgmentCivil RightsEqual ProtectionDue ProcessSelective ProsecutionDefamationLiberty InterestIllegal DumpingWorkers' Compensation LeaveCivil Service Law Section 71
References
22
Case No. ADJ9770624; ADJ10440533
Regular
Jun 09, 2025

SUMUDU JAYASURIYA vs. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The applicant, Sumudu Jayasuriya, sought reconsideration of a Findings and Award (F&A) from March 7, 2025, concerning a low back injury sustained in 2014 while employed by San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. The WCJ had found 16% permanent disability and entitlement to further medical treatment. The applicant contended that Dr. Holmes's medical reporting was not substantial evidence, the WCJ failed to consider his post-trial briefs, and defendant's attorney engaged in misconduct. The Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's reliance on Dr. Holmes's report as substantial medical evidence, affirming the WCJ's decision regarding post-trial briefs, and finding no basis for the alleged attorney misconduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTrain Control Electronic TechnicianLow Back InjuryTemporary Disability IndemnityPermanent Disability IndemnityStipulations with Request for AwardNew and Further DisabilityQualified Medical Examiner
References
10
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

Sommer v. Federal Signal Corp.

This case concerns consolidated actions against Holmes Protection, Inc., a fire alarm company, for negligent services resulting in extensive property damage at a 42-story skyscraper owned by 810 Associates in midtown Manhattan. The core legal issues revolved around the enforceability of a contractual exculpatory clause, which the Court concluded would not bar recovery for grossly negligent conduct. The Court also addressed complex contribution claims among various defendants and clarified that 810's claims against Holmes could sound in tort, not solely contract, due to the public interest nature of the services. The Appellate Division's denial of summary judgment for Holmes on the issue of gross negligence was affirmed, while contribution claims were selectively reinstated or dismissed based on the level of negligence and the duties owed to the respective parties.

Gross NegligenceExculpatory ClauseLimitation of LiabilityContribution ClaimsTort LawContract LawFire Alarm ServicesPublic PolicySummary JudgmentComparative Negligence
References
32
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 1,351 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