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

Russell v. Chase Bank USA, NA (In Re Russell)

Nigel Anthony Russell initiated an adversary proceeding against Chase Bank USA, N.A., alleging violations of a bankruptcy discharge injunction and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, along with a claim for defamation. Russell contended that Chase intentionally failed to update his credit reports to reflect a discharged debt, thereby attempting to coerce payment. Chase filed a motion to dismiss all claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss the defamation claim due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding it not "related to" the bankruptcy estate. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the discharge injunction violation claim, ruling that a deliberate refusal to correct credit information could be considered an act to collect a discharged debt, and further noted that punitive damages might be warranted if willful misconduct is proven.

BankruptcyDischarge InjunctionCredit ReportFair Credit Reporting ActDefamationMotion to DismissPunitive DamagesCivil ContemptChapter 7Debt Collection
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 1997

In re Russell B.

Respondent David B. was charged with sexual abuse of his son Russell, leading to a proceeding under Family Court Act article 10 by the petitioner. Evidence included Russell's detailed statements of abuse and David B.'s guilty plea to sexual abuse in the second degree. Family Court adjudicated Russell as sexually abused and found derivative neglect for his sisters, Kayla and Brittany. David B. appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, but the appellate court affirmed the decision. The court found Russell's statements sufficiently corroborated by David B.'s conviction.

Sexual abuseChild neglectFamily CourtCorroborationPlea of guiltyDerivative findingsFamily Court Act Article 10Penal LawAppellate DivisionChild testimony
References
3
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02162
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

Matter of Ryba v. Russell

Claimant Paul Ryba filed for workers' compensation benefits after falling off a roof while working for Buczkowski Builders LLC, a subcontractor of Ryan E. Russell, doing business as Ryan's Home Improvements (RHI). Neither Buczkowski nor RHI had workers' compensation insurance. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found Buczkowski to be the employer but held RHI liable under Workers' Compensation Law § 56 due to lack of insurance. RHI appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board, arguing § 56 was inapplicable to uninsured general contractors. The Board denied RHI's application for review, finding it incomplete for failing to fully answer question 13 on the RB-89 application. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying review due to RHI's non-compliance with the application requirements, and thus, the merits of RHI's appeal were not considered.

Uninsured EmployerGeneral Contractor LiabilityAppellate ReviewAdministrative ProcedureProcedural Non-ComplianceApplication for Review DenialStatutory InterpretationThird DepartmentRB-89 ApplicationSubcontractor Liability
References
6
Case No. 154970/19 | Appeal No. 5599 | Case No. 2024-06451
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2026

Russell v. Lenox Hill Hosp.

Plaintiff James Russell, an employee of a delivery service, sustained injuries while unloading a blood irradiator machine at Lenox Hill Hospital, falling off a truck after the machine rolled towards him. The Supreme Court had denied Lenox Hill Hospital's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 200 claims and common-law negligence, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability, and denied Rad Source Technologies' motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed these decisions, dismissing both the complaint against Lenox Hill Hospital and the third-party complaint. The court ruled that plaintiff was not a covered worker under Labor Law § 240(1) as the electrical work was unrelated to his activity and completed before delivery. Furthermore, Lenox Hill Hospital did not supervise or control plaintiff's work, negating Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence liability. The third-party complaint was also dismissed, as Rad Source cannot be held liable for the negligence of an independent contractor, and delivery work is not considered inherently dangerous.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentIndependent ContractorDelivery ServicesPremises LiabilityLoading Dock InjuryUnloading Equipment
References
7
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. ADJ4045249 (LBO 0349635)
Regular
Jul 29, 2013

PATRICK RUSSELL vs. CITY OF LONG BEACH

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by lien claimant Dr. Samer Alaiti regarding the dismissal of Miracle Mile Medical Center's (MMMC) lien. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Dr. Alaiti's petition because he was not "aggrieved" by the dismissal of MMMC's lien, as his own lien had been settled. Dr. Alaiti's representative admitted a calendar error for his own absence, but there was no indication this representative, or any other, was appearing for MMMC. The WCAB upheld the dismissal of MMMC's lien due to their failure to appear and object to the dismissal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien ClaimantMiracle Mile Medical CenterSamer Alaiti M.D.MJR Management ServicesWCJHearing RepresentativeStipulation and Order
References
3
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

Roginsky v. County of Suffolk, NY

Plaintiff Dr. Martin Roginsky filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the County of Suffolk, alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York State Executive Law. Roginsky, a physician, was constructively discharged from his Staff Physician role at the Suffolk County Jail. He claims the termination was due to his age, citing remarks made by Dr. Gerazi, the Medical Director of the Jail, and that the County used a prescription-writing issue as a pretext. The County moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting it was not Roginsky's employer and that age was not the 'but for' cause of his discharge. The Court denied the County's motion to dismiss, finding that Roginsky had plausibly alleged an employment relationship with the County and satisfied the 'but for' causation standard for his ADEA claim. Consequently, the Court also decided to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationADEAMotion to DismissConstructive DischargeEmployer-Employee RelationshipBut-For CausationPleading StandardsFederal Civil ProcedureNew York Law
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 1,380 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