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

Gibides v. Powell

This document presents a dissenting opinion in a medical malpractice case involving defendant Douglas N. Powell, M.D., an obstetrician. The plaintiff's decedent experienced heart disease symptoms, but Dr. Powell's medical records only noted wrist discomfort, attributed to carpal tunnel syndrome. The dissent argues there was no proof the decedent had heart disease symptoms when she saw Dr. Powell or that she reported them to him. It further contends that the absence of a record does not prove a history was not taken and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate reliance on Dr. Powell's records to the decedent's detriment. The case involved an appeal from an Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, concerning summary judgment.

medical malpracticeobstetricscarpal tunnel syndromeheart diseasesummary judgmentmedical recordsexpert testimonydissenting opinionappellate reviewcausation
References
3
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05974 [187 AD3d 1099]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2020

Zukowski v. Powell Cove Estates Home Owners Assn., Inc.

This personal injury action concerns Vincent Zukowski, who allegedly slipped and fell on ice at a construction site, claiming common-law negligence and Labor Law violations. The defendants, AVR-Powell C. Development Corp. and Powell Cove Associates, LLC, along with third-party defendant A-One Landscape Management, Inc., appealed the denial of their summary judgment motions. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by granting A-One's motion regarding contractual indemnification and failure to procure insurance, and dismissing Jaman Development, LLC's cross-claim for contribution against A-One. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the defendants, citing triable issues of fact regarding their negligence and notice of the dangerous condition under Labor Law § 200 and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d).

Personal InjuryCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law Section 200Labor Law Section 241(6)Slipping HazardsSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationFailure to Procure InsuranceThird-Party ActionConstruction Site Accident
References
14
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 04765 [129 AD3d 463]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2015

Hockler v. William Powell Co.

Plaintiff Bryan Hockler alleged that he developed peritoneal mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure during his work in the 1980s, dismantling and salvaging scrap metal, which included valves manufactured by defendant The William Powell Company. His claims against Powell were based on theories of strict products liability and negligence due to defective design. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed this order. The appellate court found that even if the valves were defectively designed, plaintiff's injuries did not result from their intended or reasonably foreseeable use, as dismantling was not considered such a use. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

MesotheliomaAsbestos ExposureProducts LiabilityNegligenceDefective DesignForeseeable UseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewScrap MetalDismantling
References
10
Case No. ADJ4150200 (FRE 0210339)
Regular
Apr 15, 2014

Mark Matsuda vs. Country Hutch, California Indemnity Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the original award regarding Dr. Powell's costs and medical-legal expenses. The Board rescinded the WCJ's findings and award on this issue, returning it for further proceedings. This was due to a lack of proper notice and insufficient evidence to support the award of costs for Dr. Powell's testimony. The Board affirmed all other aspects of the WCJ's decision, allowing the applicant to treat outside the defendant's MPN with Dr. Powell.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPNStipulationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardWCJDr. PowellVisalia Industrial MedicalLabor Code section 5811
References
10
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06047 [164 AD3d 1283]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2018

Powell v. Norfolk Hudson, LLC

The plaintiff, Elston Powell, a construction worker, initiated an action to recover damages for personal injuries after being struck by a falling wooden form at a construction site encompassing 101 Norfolk Street and 103-105 Norfolk Street in Manhattan. He alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 241 (6), and 200, alongside common-law negligence, against various defendants, including 101 Norfolk, LLC, the owner of 101 Norfolk Street. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted 101 Norfolk, LLC's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, concluding that triable issues of fact existed regarding 101 Norfolk, LLC's status as an "owner" under the Labor Law and its potential duty to provide a safe workplace, thus denying the motion for summary judgment.

Construction AccidentLabor LawOwner LiabilitySummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewNegligenceSafe Place to WorkPersonal Injury
References
5
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

Powell v. Delta Airlines

Plaintiff Mychael Powell, proceeding pro se, commenced an action against his former employer, Delta Airlines, alleging discrimination based on age and race under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). The case was transferred to the Eastern District of New York. Powell claimed Delta created a hostile work environment and fabricated performance issues after he refused to retire at 55, leading to his termination. The Court found sufficient allegations for the age discrimination claim but dismissed the race discrimination claim due to lack of plausible inference, granting Powell leave to file an amended complaint. The court also affirmed the presence of diversity jurisdiction.

Age discriminationRace discriminationWrongful dischargeHostile work environmentNYSHRLADEATitle VIIFederal question jurisdictionDiversity jurisdictionMotion to dismiss
References
64
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,340 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