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

In re Nicholas M.

This case concerns a petition filed by the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) for a 12-month extension of placement for Nicholas, a hearing-impaired child adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent, who committed an act that would constitute endangering the welfare of a child. Nicholas, through his Law Guardian, opposed the extension, arguing that OCFS placement was not the least restrictive, violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by denying effective treatment, and failed to provide necessary special education services. The court, presided over by Justice Michael L. Hanuszczak, found that OCFS placement remained the least restrictive alternative, balancing Nicholas's needs with community protection, and dismissed the ADA violation claim due to insufficient evidence. However, the court did find that Nicholas was not receiving mandated speech language therapy and a teacher of the deaf as outlined in his individualized education program (IEP). Consequently, the court granted the extension of placement with OCFS for 12 months, from July 20, 2001, to July 20, 2002, and ordered OCFS to conduct an evaluation regarding Nicholas's special education needs and submit an educational service plan.

Juvenile DelinquencyFoster CarePlacement ExtensionAmericans With Disabilities ActADASpecial EducationIndividualized Education ProgramIEPSexual Offender TreatmentLeast Restrictive Placement
References
4
Case No. 11-1026
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2011

Nicholas v. Oren (In Re Nicholas)

Matthew Oren (pro se) filed a complaint in state court against Stephen Nicholas (Debtor) and others, alleging various torts related to Nicholas's bankruptcy case and his debt to Oren. The action was removed to bankruptcy court. Nicholas subsequently moved to hold Oren in contempt for violating his Chapter 13 discharge injunction by pursuing pre-petition claims. The court, presided over by Chief Judge Carla E. Craig, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss Oren's complaint, finding that his causes of action either failed to state a claim (malicious prosecution, abuse of process, threat of litigation, libel and slander, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment) or were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel (fraudulent misrepresentation and related unjust enrichment). Furthermore, the court found Oren's sixth cause of action (fraudulent misrepresentation regarding a deed in lieu of foreclosure) was a pre-petition claim discharged in bankruptcy and barred by the Statute of Frauds. The court also granted Nicholas's motion to hold Oren in contempt, ruling that Oren willfully violated Nicholas's discharge injunction by continuing to pursue discharged claims. Due to Oren's bad faith and egregious conduct, Nicholas was awarded attorney's fees and $5,000 in punitive damages. Oren's cross-motion and cross-application for various forms of relief were denied.

BankruptcyDischarge InjunctionContemptRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelMalicious ProsecutionAbuse of ProcessFraudulent MisrepresentationUnjust EnrichmentLibel
References
64
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

Kara v. Apfel

The plaintiff, an unnamed 28-year-old diesel mechanic, challenged the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits for a back injury sustained in May 1994. Medical professionals like orthopedist Dr. William Unis, neurologist Dr. Nicholas DePalma, and Dr. T.V. Seshan noted significant limitations and recommended vocational retraining or sedentary work, while chiropractor Dr. Joseph A. Rossello found total disability for a period. Administrative Law Judge Christopher P. Lee found the plaintiff not disabled, capable of sedentary work, citing inconsistencies between subjective pain claims and medical evidence. The court, presided over by District Judge Parker, granted the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings, affirming the denial of benefits.

Social Security DisabilityDisability Insurance BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeSedentary WorkBack DisorderDisc HerniationResidual Functional CapacityMedical Vocational GuidelinesChiropractor Opinion WeightSubstantial Evidence Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dominick v. Charles Millar & Son Co.

Plaintiffs Nicholas Dominick and Lorraine J. Dominick (who later abandoned her claim) commenced an action against Millar defendants for injuries sustained by Nicholas Dominick due to asbestos exposure. A jury found that products supplied by the Millar defendants caused Nicholas Dominick's asbestos exposure due to their failure to warn, and that this failure substantially contributed to his injuries. The Millar defendants appealed the judgment, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding causation, the preclusion of certain witnesses, and the jury's apportionment of fault and the damages awarded. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding there was sufficient evidence for causation, no abuse of discretion in witness preclusion, and the jury's findings on fault and damages were reasonable.

Asbestos exposureToxic tortProduct liabilityFailure to warnCausationSpecific causationJury verdictAppellate reviewSufficiency of evidenceWitness preclusion
References
13
Case No. CA 16-02017
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2017

DOMINICK, NICHOLAS v. CHARLES MILLAR & SON CO.

Plaintiffs Nicholas Dominick and Lorraine J. Dominick initiated an action against the Millar defendants, alleging injuries Nicholas sustained due to asbestos exposure from products supplied by the defendants. A jury found the Millar defendants liable for failing to provide adequate warnings regarding asbestos hazards, deeming this a substantial factor in causing Nicholas's injuries. The defendants-appellants appealed, contesting the sufficiency of evidence for causation and the preclusion of certain witnesses. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, upheld the lower court's judgment. The appellate court found the expert testimony sufficient to establish specific causation, rejected claims of improper witness preclusion, and affirmed the jury's apportionment of fault and the awarded damages for future pain and suffering.

Asbestos ExposurePersonal InjuryProduct LiabilityFailure to WarnCausationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceExpert TestimonyWitness Preclusion
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2012

Williams v. Woodhull Medical & Mental Health Center

Valerie E. Williams filed an action against Woodhull Medical and Mental Health Center and other defendants, alleging discrimination and retaliation under federal and state laws, including Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986. Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom issued a Report and Recommendation, advising to grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiff Williams filed objections to the R&R, particularly contesting the recommendation on her Title VII retaliation claim. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, upon de novo review of the contested portions and clear error review of the uncontested, adopted the R&R in its entirety. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding Williams's claims, specifically noting a lack of causal connection for retaliation and insufficient evidence for a hostile work environment or due process violations.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VII RetaliationSummary JudgmentProcedural Due ProcessHostile Work EnvironmentMedical Negligence AllegationsPublic Health LawHospital EmploymentMagistrate Judge ReviewFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 56
References
80
Showing 1-10 of 1,392 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