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

McBarnette v. Feldman

This case addresses proceedings initiated by the New York Attorney-General on behalf of the Department of Health (DOH) and by an individual patient, Gail Eileen Strouse, following the death of Dr. Philip Feldman, a dentist who succumbed to AIDS. The DOH sought to compel the administrator of Dr. Feldman's estate to release patient records for an epidemiological study into potential HIV transmission, a request the estate opposed citing physician-patient privilege and confidentiality laws. The court granted the DOH's motion, ruling that public health interests and DOH's statutory authority for investigations supersede these objections, with assurances of confidentiality for the data. Concurrently, Ms. Strouse's attempts to intervene in the DOH action, consolidate her separate tort claim against the estate, and certify it as a class action were all denied, as her individual claims and proof requirements were deemed distinct and unsuitable for such treatment.

Public Health LawHIV/AIDS ConfidentialityPhysician-Patient PrivilegeSubpoena Duces TecumEpidemiological StudyClass Action DenialCase Consolidation DenialInfected Healthcare WorkerMedical Records AccessPatient Data Disclosure
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 1994

Whirlpool Corp. v. Philips Electronics, N.V.

This case involves Whirlpool Corporation seeking to confirm a foreign arbitral award against Philips Electronics N.V., while Philips moved to dismiss or stay the action pending further arbitration. The dispute arose from a joint venture and subsequent acquisition of Philips' Argentine MDA operations by Whirlpool, specifically concerning the revaluation of fixed assets and the applicable accounting policies under their Reorganization and Purchase Agreement (RPA) and Amendment No. 1. An initial arbitration before Arthur Andersen & Co. ruled in favor of Whirlpool, determining that Schedule G of the RPA, which limited asset revaluation, applied despite Philips' arguments for a different "Schedule G (Argentina)." The court, presided over by District Judge Sweet, affirmed Andersen's jurisdiction and the validity of its binding award. Consequently, Whirlpool's motion to confirm the foreign arbitral award was granted, and Philips' motion to dismiss or stay the action was denied.

Arbitral Award ConfirmationForeign ArbitrationContract DisputeAccounting PoliciesAsset ValuationJoint VentureCorporate AcquisitionFederal Arbitration ActDispute ResolutionJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
20
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00839
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Mena (Philips Bryant Park LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

Claimant Giovanni Mena applied for unemployment insurance benefits after ceasing to work as a doorman/bottle host for Philips Bryant Park LLC. The Department of Labor initially determined he was an employee and Philips was liable for contributions. After a series of appeals and remittals, including Philips' initial default, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially overruled the Department's finding. However, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately upheld the ALJ's later decision, which sustained the Department's initial determination of an employer-employee relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, finding substantial evidence to support the employment relationship based on factors such as Philips setting claimant's schedule and rate of pay, requiring him to punch a time clock, and controlling aspects of his work. The Board's finding that the employment relationship applied to similarly situated individuals was also affirmed.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent Contractor StatusSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentControl TestAdministrative Law JudgeUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardParty Promoters
References
10
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
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. 2021-03335
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2024

Matter of Smallman

This disciplinary proceeding addresses attorney Philip J. Smallman's professional misconduct involving a sexual relationship with his client, CL. CL was a vulnerable survivor of childhood and adult sex trafficking, a fact known to Smallman. The attorney engaged in a series of inappropriate sexual text messages and ultimately physical contact with CL in his office while representing her in a criminal matter. The court found that Smallman violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.8(j)(1)(ii) and 8.4(h) by employing coercion or undue influence. The Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report, which sustained both charges, was granted, and Smallman was suspended from practicing law for five years.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethicsDisciplinary actionAttorney suspensionSexual relations with clientVulnerable clientFiduciary dutySex trafficking survivorRules of Professional ConductAppellate Division Second Department
References
0
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

Koninklijke Philips Electronics v. Digital Works, Inc.

This case involves a breach of contract dispute between Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (plaintiff) and Digital Works, Inc. (defendant) concerning a Compact Disc Patent License Agreement. Philips initiated the lawsuit in New York State Court, asserting breach of contractual obligations, which Digital Works subsequently removed to federal court. Digital Works also moved to dismiss the claims based on lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The court upheld the validity and enforceability of the Agreement's forum selection clause, which mandated jurisdiction in New York and included a waiver of objection to jurisdiction and venue by Digital Works. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied, and the plaintiff's motion to remand the action back to the New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County, was granted. However, Philips' request for attorney's fees and costs incurred due to the removal was denied, as the court found Digital Works' removal was not frivolous.

Breach of ContractPatent LicensingForum Selection ClausePersonal Jurisdiction WaiverRemoval JurisdictionContract EnforcementDiversity ActionChoice of ForumContractual WaiversCommercial Dispute
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De La Rosa v. Philip Morris Management Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Global Overhead Doors, sustained injuries falling from a ladder while repairing a gate at premises managed by Shorenstein Company East, L.P. and owned by Philip Morris Management Corporation. Plaintiff initiated legal action alleging common-law negligence and Labor Law violations. Shorenstein moved for summary judgment to dismiss the common-law negligence claim and for contractual indemnification against Philip Morris. The Supreme Court denied Shorenstein's motion, citing factual disputes regarding supervisory authority and contract interpretation. On appeal, the higher court reversed, ruling that Shorenstein lacked the requisite supervision over plaintiff's work for common-law negligence liability and that the indemnification clause between Shorenstein and Philip Morris was clear, entitling Shorenstein to a defense and contractual indemnity.

Summary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceLabor LawContractual IndemnificationAppellate ReviewSupervisory AuthorityWorkplace SafetyLadder AccidentManaging AgentCross Claim
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,377 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