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
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. ADJ1182220 (WCK 0044768) ADJ144318 (WCK 0044769)
Regular
Feb 27, 2009

RICHARD CRUZ vs. AMERICAN PROTECTIVE SERVICES INC., CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an award to Richard Cruz. The Board adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) who found that the applicant sustained a specific industrial spinal injury on December 16, 1997, and a cumulative trauma spinal injury through January 28, 1998, while employed by American Protective Services. The WCJ found the applicant credible and relied on the opinions of two medical evaluators, Dr. Brose and Dr. Lavorgna, who ultimately supported the finding of industrial injuries. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination and incorporated the WCJ's report, denying the defendant's petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedWCJ ReportCredibility FindingIndustrial InjurySpecific InjuryCumulative TraumaSpine InjurySecurity GuardAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
1
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00482 [179 AD3d 546]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2020

Matter of Maxine B. v. Richard C.

This case concerns an appeal by Richard C. against an order of protection issued in favor of his mother, Maxine B., by the Family Court of Bronx County. The order was based on a finding that Richard C. committed menacing in the third degree. Richard C. argued that Maxine B. had stated she did not want the order, but the Appellate Division noted that other evidence, including sworn testimony from a social worker and counsel's representations made outside Richard C.'s presence, indicated Maxine B.'s need for protection. The court affirmed the finding that Richard C. intentionally placed Maxine B. in fear of physical injury, resulting in a black eye, and upheld the Family Court's credibility assessments. Other arguments regarding evidence admission, right to counsel, and the social worker's authority were dismissed as unpreserved or without specific prejudice. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the order of protection.

Order of ProtectionMenacing Third DegreeFamily Court ActAppellate DivisionCredibility AssessmentEvidence AdmissibilityRight to CounselFamily OffenseDomestic ViolenceAffirmation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Tunison v. P. C. Richards & Son

This case involves an appeal from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning workers' compensation death benefits. The decedent, an employee of Outlaw Trucking Company, was fatally injured while delivering merchandise for P. C. Richards & Son. The Board found that the decedent was a special employee of P. C. Richards & Son and that his death arose out of and in the course of this special employment, making P. C. Richards & Son liable for death benefits. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support the finding of a special employment relationship due to P. C. Richards & Son's control over the decedent's work, and that the death occurred in the course of employment as he was returning truck keys.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmploymentDeath BenefitsEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewControl TestCourse of EmploymentInsurance CarrierTrucking IndustryWorkers' Compensation Board
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richard H. v. Consilvio

Petitioner Richard H., diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, has a history of involuntary commitments and bank robberies. This appeal concerns the Commissioner of Mental Health's application for a retention order in a secure psychiatric facility. A lower court initially ordered his transfer to a nonsecure facility, crediting his testimony and an advisory jury opinion that he was not dangerous. The Appellate Division, upon review, found that the Commissioner had established Richard H. suffers from a "dangerous mental disorder." The court emphasized his history of dangerous behavior, noncompliance with medication, escapes from nonsecure facilities, and delusional beliefs. Therefore, the Supreme Court's order was modified, and Richard H. was ordered to be retained in a secure facility.

Paranoid SchizophreniaInvoluntary CommitmentInsanity AcquitteeDangerous Mental DisorderRetention OrderMental Hygiene LawCriminal Procedure LawMedication NoncomplianceBank RobberyDelusional Beliefs
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Sanctioning of Richard N.

This opinion addresses the appropriate sanction for juror Richard N. who intentionally abandoned a summary jury trial and misled the court about his whereabouts, falsely claiming a 'neurological emergency'. Presided over by Justice Martin E. Ritholtz in Queens County, the court initiated a special proceeding to penalize Richard N. for his misconduct. While civil or criminal contempt charges were considered, the court ultimately utilized its inherent powers to impose a less severe sanction. Richard N. confessed and apologized for his deceptive behavior. The court ordered him to pay a $250 fine and determined that his jury service would not be credited, leaving him eligible for future jury duty.

Juror MisconductContempt of CourtSpecial ProceedingJudicial SanctionInherent Powers of CourtJury Duty AbandonmentDeceptive ConductDue ProcessRight to CounselCivil Contempt
References
38
Case No. 531945
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

In the Matter of the Claim of Alroy Richards

Claimant Alroy Richards appealed two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board initially ruled that Richards did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment and denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits. Subsequently, the Board denied his request for reconsideration and/or full Board review. Richards claimed to have experienced pain while moving oxygen tanks at work in April 2017 but failed to seek timely medical treatment or report the incident. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its credibility determinations and finding substantial evidence to support the finding that the proof presented by the claimant was insufficient to demonstrate an accident occurred in the course of his employment.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAccidental InjuryEmployment ScopeUntimely NoticeBoard AffirmationCredibility of ClaimantSubstantial Evidence ReviewMedical CausationReconsideration DenialAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03580 [150 AD3d 1349]
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2017

Claim of Richards v. Massena Central Schools

Mary Ann Richards, a cleaner, sustained neck injuries in March 2010 while working for Massena Central Schools, leading to an established workers' compensation claim and cervical surgery. In June 2013, she sought to amend her claim to include consequential neurological injuries, specifically scapulothoracic crepitation and mandibular dysesthesia. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board denied this amendment, concluding that Richards failed to demonstrate a causal relationship between her established work injury and the alleged consequential conditions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence. Multiple medical professionals, including orthopedic surgeons and neurologists, provided opinions that either could not determine the etiology of Richards' symptoms or found no objective evidence linking them to her work injury or subsequent surgery.

Workers' CompensationNeurological InjuryCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewScapulothoracic CrepitationMandibular DysesthesiaCervical SurgeryIndependent Medical ExaminationBurden of Proof
References
5
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. ADJ1923190
Regular
Jul 19, 2010

Richard Martinez vs. SIFLING BROTHERS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

Lien claimants, Dr. Silver and Dr. Bresler, sought payment for medical services exceeding the Official Medical Fee Schedule (OMFS). They argued their services warranted higher fees due to "extraordinary circumstances" and defendant's alleged improper billing practices. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied their petitions for reconsideration, finding they failed to meet the burden of proof. The board held that lien claimants must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying fees above the OMFS and present evidence of their usual and customary fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRichard MartinezSifling BrothersZenith Insurance CompanyDavid BreslerDavid SilverSupplemental Findings and AwardOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleLien ClaimantsReconsideration
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,749 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