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
Jul 07, 1988

In re Kaplan

Kenneth F. Kaplan, an attorney, was charged with professional misconduct, specifically the conversion of client funds. He received a $25,000 settlement check for his client, Josephine Burton, which he deposited into his fiancée's savings account and used for personal expenses, failing to maintain it in a proper escrow account for 5.5 years. Kaplan claimed he segregated cash in safe-deposit boxes, expecting to pay Burton in cash due to her being on welfare. The Departmental Disciplinary Committee's Hearing Panel rejected his defense, concluding he misappropriated his client's money and converted her funds. The court confirmed the Panel's findings and recommendations, ordering Kaplan's disbarment for the conversion of client funds.

Attorney misconductClient funds conversionEscrow account violationDisciplinary actionProfessional responsibilityCode of Professional ResponsibilityWorkers' Compensation LawSafe-deposit boxDisbarmentAttorney ethics
References
2
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 06063 [142 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2016

Kaplan v. New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene

Constance Kaplan sued the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene alleging sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court, Kings County, dismissed several of Kaplan's causes of action. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court held that Kaplan had sufficiently stated causes of action for sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge, and that the defendants' motion to dismiss should have been denied. The court clarified that the burden to show petty slight or trivial inconvenience rests with the defendants as an affirmative defense, and pre-answer dismissal motions only address the adequacy of pleading.

Sexual harassmentRetaliatory dischargeHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAdministrative CodeMotion to dismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)CPLR 3211 (a) (8)Appellate reviewPleading adequacy
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaplan v. Bayley Seton Hospital

Deborah Kaplan was injured after a fall at Bayley Seton Hospital where she was going to work for St. Vincent's Medical Center, which operated within the same building. Both hospitals, although under a common corporate parent (Sisters of Charity Health Care Corporation), maintained separate legal entities and finances. Bayley Seton Hospital, the defendant, moved for summary judgment arguing that the Workers' Compensation Law should shield it from liability. However, the Supreme Court, Richmond County, denied this motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to strike the affirmative defense. This appellate decision affirmed the lower court's ruling, emphasizing that the separate legal identities of the hospitals meant Bayley Seton could not be shielded from tort liability.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation DefenseCorporate VeilIntercorporate LiabilitySeparate Legal EntitiesPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewHospital LiabilityTort Law
References
4
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

Kaplan v. Ruggieri

Plaintiff David Kaplan sued St. John's University and several individuals alleging six causes of action, including breach of a collective bargaining agreement, breach of duty of fair representation, wrongful denial of tenure, and defamation. The core of Kaplan's claims revolved around being denied tenure, changes to his teaching schedule, and the Union's handling of his grievances. The court reviewed defendants' motion for summary judgment, noting that the facts were undisputed. The court dismissed all of Kaplan's claims, finding that his first claim lacked a genuine controversy, the second lacked allegations of bad faith against the Union, and the third and fourth failed due to non-exhaustion of grievance procedures. The fifth claim was dismissed because tenure decisions were excluded from grievance procedures, and the defamation claim was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Tenure DenialSummary JudgmentLabor-Management Relations ActBreach of Duty of Fair RepresentationGrievance ProcedureCollective Bargaining AgreementAcademic EmploymentDefamationExhaustion of RemediesFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
13
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 1,347 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