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. ADJ9917545
Regular
Nov 30, 2018

Richard Ray vs. Jed Francis, Inc., Zurich American Insurance Group, American Claims Management

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that Richard Ray sustained an industrial injury. This injury, originating from an eye incident, led to a MRSA infection, epidural abscess, paraplegia, and severe permanent impairments. Medical evidence from IME Dr. Feinberg, Dr. Edington, and Dr. Baum established a medical probability that the initial eye injury caused the subsequent severe cascade of medical conditions. The Board affirmed the WCJ's credibility determination regarding the applicant's testimony, finding no substantial contrary evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial causationepidural abscessMRSAparaplegiasubstantial medical evidenceindependent medical evaluatorarising out of and in the course of employmentmedical sequelaeapportionment
References
0
Case No. 533294
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2022

Matter of Strack v. Plattsburgh City Sch. Dist.

Claimant Nancy Strack, a school teacher, sustained a left intertrochanteric hip fracture and left wrist injury in 2016. Her claim for workers' compensation benefits was established. During permanency evaluations, independent medical examiners Dr. Saunders found a 60% schedule loss of use (SLU) of the left leg, while Dr. Petroski found 0% SLU. After initial proceedings and administrative review, the Workers' Compensation Board ultimately affirmed a 0% SLU based on Dr. Petroski's opinion, despite previously requiring updated X-rays for such assessments. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding that Dr. Petroski's opinion lacked substantial evidence because it, like Dr. Saunders', failed to incorporate updated X-rays as mandated by the 2018 Workers' Compensation Guidelines for Determining Impairment. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for a proper determination of the claimant's SLU award.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Hip FractureWorkers' Compensation GuidelinesIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Medical EvidenceX-ray RequirementAppellate ReviewRemittalSubstantial EvidencePermanent Impairment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ray

The Commissioner of Social Services filed neglect petitions against June Ray concerning her two children, Laura and Darnell. The petitions alleged the mother failed to provide proper psychiatric care for Laura, who exhibited hyperactivity and emotional disturbance. Despite recommendations from school counselors and social workers, and referrals to treatment centers, the respondent consistently failed to follow through with Laura's therapy, believing nothing was wrong with her. Medical testimony confirmed Laura's emotional neglect and the need for psychiatric intervention. The court found Laura Ray to be a neglected child due to the mother's unwillingness to pursue recommended therapy, but dismissed the petition regarding Darnell Ray, citing insufficient evidence of neglect for the second child.

NeglectChild WelfareFamily Court ActEmotional NeglectPsychiatric CareParental ResponsibilityChild ProtectionMedical InterventionImpaired Emotional Health
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. ADJ1923835 (LBO 0337936) ADJ611957 (LBO 0367126)
Regular
May 04, 2009

ESTHER OVALLE vs. CITY OF GARDENA, CORVEL CHINO

In ADJ1923835, the WCJ found no permanent disability from a specific injury to applicant's right shoulder and wrists on October 16, 2000. In ADJ611957, the WCJ awarded 56% permanent disability for a cumulative trauma injury to bilateral shoulders and wrists ending November 16, 2000. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing Dr. Craemer's IME opinion was not substantial evidence, particularly regarding the left shoulder injury's timing and apportionment. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's reliance on Dr. Craemer's opinion that all permanent disability stemmed from the cumulative trauma. A clerical error in the cumulative trauma date was also corrected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEsther OvalleCity of GardenaCorvel ChinoADJ1923835ADJ611957Petition for ReconsiderationClerical ErrorPermanent DisabilitySpecific Injury
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
Mar 10, 1981

Botwinick v. Ogden

Sylvia Botwinick, an employee of Conde Nast, underwent company-offered chest X-rays in 1977 and 1979, which were read as normal by Dr. Herbert Ogden, an employee physician. She was later diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, contending that the X-rays showed early signs and that Dr. Ogden's negligence delayed diagnosis. Defendants Conde Nast and Ogden moved to dismiss the malpractice action, arguing that Botwinick's exclusive remedy was under the Workers' Compensation Law, citing the 'same employ' provision. Special Term granted dismissal. However, the appellate court reversed, distinguishing prior cases where injuries were work-related. The court held that since Botwinick's injury was not connected to her employment and the medical service was a routine physical, not for a work-related malady, Workers' Compensation Law did not apply, allowing the malpractice suit to proceed.

Medical malpracticeWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedyEmployer liabilityNegligenceRoutine physical examinationCancer diagnosisDelayed diagnosisJurisdictionSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
3
Case No. ADJ8953669
Regular
Jun 01, 2019

MAI DANG vs. APPLIED MEDICAL RESOURCES CORPORATION, administered by ESIS WEST

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and admitted the deposition transcript of Dr. Ray L. Craemer as Applicant's Exhibit 12, finding no prejudice to the defendant. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision regarding the merits of the case. Additionally, the Board ordered the defendant to reimburse the Employment Development Department (EDD) for specific periods and amounts, clarifying an omission in the original award. The defendant's petition for reconsideration was otherwise denied, and claims of serious and willful misconduct were dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationDeposition TranscriptExhibit AdmissionPrejudiceSurpriseInconvenienceFindings of FactReimbursementEmployment Development Department
References
2
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
May 20, 1993

Ray v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Larry Ray, a maintenance worker, and Blake Willett, an LIRR Police Officer, were involved in a physical altercation where Willett allegedly beat and handcuffed Ray. Ray was later released by Willett's supervisor. Plaintiffs sued Willett and the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) for battery, false arrest and imprisonment, negligent retention, and civil rights violations under 42 USC § 1983. The Supreme Court, Kings County, dismissed claims against the LIRR for negligent retention and civil rights violations and dismissed the complaint against Willett due to defective service of process. The jury found Willett liable for battery and false arrest/imprisonment but not for civil rights violation. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the dismissals, concluding that Willett's conduct was not within the scope of employment and he was not acting under color of state law, and that service upon Willett was indeed defective.

BatteryFalse ImprisonmentCivil Rights ViolationNegligent RetentionRespondeat SuperiorPolice MisconductPersonal JurisdictionService of ProcessAppellate LawKings County
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 1,385 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