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. ADJ2728444 (MON 0350632) ADJ2607754 (MON 0350633) ADJ3092568 (MON 0350634) ADJ4333657 (MON 0350635)
Regular
Aug 09, 2012

FELISA LOPEZ vs. TARGET CORPORATION

The Appeals Board denied Felisa Lopez's Petition for Removal, upholding the Workers' Compensation Judge's order for her to attend an examination by Dr. Markovitz under Labor Code section 4050. While the examination is permitted, Dr. Markovitz's report will not be admissible as evidence due to discovery limitations under Labor Code sections 4061(h), 4062(a), and 4062.2. Consequently, the report cannot be shared with the Agreed Medical Evaluator, Dr. Gillis, nor can it be referenced during his deposition.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMEDiscoveryLabor Code section 4050Labor Code section 4062Labor Code section 4062.2Admissible EvidenceDepositionInternal Medicine
References
0
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. ADJ4225526 (GOL 0092072)
Regular
Apr 20, 2017

JESUS ARROYO vs. JOHN CRAVENS PLASTERING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves Jesus Arroyo's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. Medical evidence from Dr. Markovitz established that Arroyo suffered a total and permanent disability resulting from industrial injuries, including an aortic aneurysm repair and subsequent strokes. The Board found Dr. Markovitz's opinions constituted substantial medical evidence, despite conflicting defense opinions, and affirmed that all necessary medical care and permanent disability were industrially caused.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJesus ArroyoJohn Cravens PlasteringState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical ExaminerGerald Markovitzechocardiogramaortic root dilationexpanding aortic aneurysm
References
0
Case No. ADJ13703697
Regular
May 22, 2025

VICTOR ROMERO vs. SANTA BARBARA SMOKEHOUSE, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

Victor Romero, the applicant, sustained a COVID-19 related injury resulting in pulmonary fibrosis and chronic lung disease. The defendant, Santa Barbara Smokehouse and Compwest Insurance Company, sought reconsideration of a Findings and Award (F&A) which entitled the applicant to temporary disability exceeding 104 weeks. The defendant argued that Dr. Gerald Markovitz's medical report was not substantial evidence and that their due process rights were violated. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the WCJ's report, affirming that Dr. Markovitz's report constituted substantial medical evidence. Consequently, the Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration.

AOE/COECOVID-19Pulmonary fibrosisChronic lung diseaseTemporary disabilityLabor Code § 4656Permanent and stationaryMMIPetition for reconsiderationSubstantial medical evidence
References
9
Case No. ADJ1244874
Regular
Apr 19, 2010

ENRIQUE ROJAS vs. COSTCO

This case involves a meat cutter/wrapper's claim for an industrial injury to his respiratory system, diagnosed as hypersensitivity pneumonitis. The defendant contested the finding of industrial causation, arguing the medical evidence was insufficient. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision, finding that the agreed medical examiner, Dr. Markovitz, established a reasonable medical probability of industrial causation, despite not identifying the precise causative agent. The Board relied on Dr. Markovitz's expert opinion, which utilized a process of elimination and epidemiological considerations to conclude the condition was likely work-related.

Hypersensitivity PneumonitisIndustrial CausationAgreed Medical EvaluatorPulmonologistMeat CutterMeat WrapperRespiratory System InjuryCumulative TraumaProcess of EliminationReasonable Medical Probability
References
3
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 1,317 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