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

Tucker v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center

Karen Tucker, a pro se plaintiff, sued Wyckoff Heights Medical Center and Dr. Ronald Guberman for breach of contract, Title VII retaliation, defamation, and tortious interference with prospective business relations. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, which the court treated as a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from her assertion that she was entitled to a residency completion certificate despite not completing the program, and alleged retaliatory and defamatory actions by defendants regarding her employment. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that many of Tucker's claims were barred by a prior settlement agreement or failed on the merits, as her factual allegations did not support the legal elements of her claims. The court also denied Tucker's request to amend her complaint as futile, though it allowed her to pursue breach of contract claims in New Jersey.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationDefamationTortious InterferenceSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigationBreach of ContractSettlement AgreementMedical ResidencyFederal Civil Procedure
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Golda v. Hutchinson Enterprises

This Labor Law case involved appeals from an order concerning summary judgment. Plaintiffs initially secured partial summary judgment against Hutchinson Enterprises (Kwik Stop Food Mart) under Labor Law § 240 (1). Hutchinson, after settling with the plaintiffs, appealed the denial of its motion for common-law indemnification from National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation, the employer of the original plaintiff, James Golda. National Fuel cross-appealed, seeking dismissal of the third-party complaint based on recent amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. The court found that the Supreme Court erred in denying Hutchinson's motion, granting Hutchinson indemnification as its liability was passive. The court also determined that the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 amendments were not retroactively applicable, thus denying National Fuel's cross-motion. The order was unanimously modified and affirmed with costs to Hutchinson.

Labor LawWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentIndemnificationRetroactivityThird-Party ClaimAppellate ReviewVicarious LiabilityPassive LiabilityEmployment Law
References
9
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

In re Karen F.

This case concerns an appeal from a Family Court order in Cortland County which found respondent's 16-year-old daughter, Karen, who has limited mental capacity, to be abused. The Family Court based its determination on testimony from the victim and other witnesses. Respondent's subsequent motion to vacate the finding due to newly discovered evidence, an affidavit from Karen's brother claiming she lied, was denied. The appellate court rejected a mootness argument and affirmed the Family Court's abuse finding, concluding it was sufficiently supported by the evidence despite minor discrepancies in accounts and the later recantation attempt.

Child AbuseFamily Court Act Article 10Abuse AdjudicationWitness CredibilityChild RecantationNewly Discovered EvidenceOrder of ProtectionAppellate ReviewMootness DoctrineSufficiency of Evidence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Lillian Brown, an assistant head nurse, sustained a needle stick injury from an angiocath stylet in the crib of an HIV-positive infant, Baby C., at Queens General Hospital in December 1990. She subsequently developed 'AIDS phobia' and sued the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and two doctors for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendants sought to compel HIV testing and moved for summary judgment, arguing her fear was unreasonable given prior negative tests and lack of definitive exposure. The appellate court modified a lower court order, ruling that while actual exposure (scientifically accepted transmission method and HIV-positive source) is required for 'AIDS phobia' claims, triable issues of fact existed. However, the court limited the plaintiff's recoverable damages for emotional distress to the initial six-month period following exposure, unless she could provide evidence of a positive HIV-antibody test, as her fear would be deemed unreasonable thereafter.

AIDS phobianegligent infliction of emotional distressHIV exposuremedical malpracticesummary judgmentemotional damagesreasonable fearmitigation of damagesHIV-antibody testactual exposure
References
41
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 1,414 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