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 10, 1997

Sam v. Town of Rotterdam

Plaintiff Sien Sam, a brake technician, was injured on February 2, 1993, when a police vehicle owned by the defendant experienced brake failure at Salisbury Chevrolet, Inc. Sam's complaint alleged derivative liability of the defendant as the vehicle owner and negligence for failing to disclose the vehicle's dangerous braking system. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint, leading to the plaintiffs' appeal. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, noting that objections to the technical form of a supporting deposition must be preserved at the trial level. Furthermore, the court found plaintiffs failed to present evidence identifying the cause of the brake failure or demonstrating the defendant's knowledge of the defect.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIssue PreservationEvidentiary RulesAffidavit RequirementVehicle NegligenceBrake FailureOwner LiabilityDuty to Warn
References
6
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
Apr 15, 1994

Avila v. A. Sam & Sons

This case involved ten Haitian Creole farm workers who sued A. Sam and Sons Produce Company, Inc., Esau Sam, and Robert Sam for alleged violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) during the 1987 tomato and cucumber harvest in Dunkirk, New York. The plaintiffs claimed various breaches concerning housing, disclosure, transportation, record-keeping, and the use of unregistered farm labor contractors. The court found that the defendants intentionally violated AWPA provisions related to housing, transportation, record-keeping, wage statements, and registration by, among other things, allowing workers to reside on premises without adequate safety standards and failing to maintain proper employment records. However, the court did not find the defendants liable for disclosure, false information, or working arrangement violations. Consequently, a judgment for $25,000.00 in statutory damages was entered in favor of the plaintiffs.

Migrant Agricultural Worker Protection Actfarm laborhousing violationstransportation violationsrecord-keeping violationswage statement violationsunregistered contractorsemployer responsibilitystatutory damagesagricultural employers
References
37
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weintraub v. Spilke

This case concerns an action brought by Local No. 509, a union affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, to restrain defendants Julius Spilke and Sam Spilke from employing individuals who are not union members. The dispute centers on an agreement signed in 1929 by Julius Spilke with Local No. 500, a predecessor to Local No. 509. The defendants contended that Local No. 509 was not a party to the agreement and Sam Spilke was not bound by it. The court determined that Local No. 509 effectively succeeded Local No. 500 and that Sam Spilke, the bakery owner, had ratified his son Julius's actions in signing the agreement, benefiting from its terms and thus making the agreement binding upon him as well. The court found that Julius acted as either the alter ego or agent of his father.

Union AgreementLabor LawContract EnforcementAgencyAlter Ego DoctrineRatificationSuccessor in InterestInjunctionEmployment PracticesTrade Union
References
0
Case No. ADJ2868357 (LBO 0359096)
Regular
Jan 25, 2010

WARREN MACDONALD vs. WALMART STORES/SAM'S CLUB, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, Administered By AVIZENT

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's finding that Dr. Wertheimer's opinions constituted substantial medical evidence. The defendant argued Dr. Wertheimer's conclusions lacked an objective basis, were inconsistent, and included a psychiatric diagnosis outside his orthopedic expertise. The Appeals Board reviewed the record, including Dr. Wertheimer's reports and depositions, and found his opinions sufficiently explained and supported. Therefore, the Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding.

WCABPetition to ReopenStipulationPermanent DisabilitySubstantial Medical EvidenceAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMENew and Further DisabilitySomatoform Pain DisorderOrthopedics
References
5
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
Case No. ADJ7877096
Regular
Jan 23, 2017

OGANES KARDZHYAN vs. DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, CHARTIS INSURANCE CO./AIG CLAIM SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, finding the WCJ failed to address the substantiality of Dr. Pietruszka's opinion regarding industrial causation for psoriatic arthritis, diabetes, and headaches. The Board amended the WCJ's findings to include previously established injuries and returned the matter for further proceedings. The WCJ is directed to consider Dr. Pietruszka's opinion and develop the record on orthopedic injuries. This decision is not final and allows for future reconsideration of the WCJ's new ruling.

Petition for ReconsiderationMedical OpinionPsoriatic ArthritisDiabetesHeadachesIndustrially CausedSubstantial Medical EvidenceDevelop the RecordOrthopedic InjuriesPsyche
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,355 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