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. 2019 NY Slip Op 08436
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2019

Sanders v. Sanders-Morrow

Steven Sanders, the plaintiff, appealed an order granting summary judgment to the defendants Carolyn Sanders-Morrow, William Morrow, and Dolores Morrow in a personal injury action. Sanders sustained injuries from a ladder fall while removing gutters from a property owned by Carolyn and Dolores, and occupied by William. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, which dismissed the plaintiff's claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6), and common-law negligence. The court found that Carolyn and Dolores were entitled to the homeowner's exemption under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) as the property was a one-family dwelling and they did not direct or control the work. William, though not an owner, was also not liable as a contractor or agent due to lack of supervisory control. Furthermore, all defendants were exempt from liability under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence as the injuries stemmed from the manner of work, not a dangerous premises condition, and they lacked supervisory authority over the plaintiff's work.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawHomeowner's ExemptionPersonal InjuryLadder FallWorker SafetyNegligenceSupervisory ControlAppellate ReviewReal Property
References
21
Case No. CV-22-1860
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2025

Matter of Sanders v. NYU Langone Hosps.

Claimant Ronnie G. Sanders, a utility worker, sought workers' compensation benefits for alleged neck and back injuries from a work accident. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board disallowed the claim, citing inconsistencies in testimony and a lack of credible medical evidence linking the injuries to the work incident. Key medical reports, including one from an independent medical examiner, found no causal relationship. Claimant's application for reconsideration or full Board review, based on newly obtained medical documents, was denied by the Board on the grounds that the evidence was not "newly discovered" and could have been presented earlier. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary or capricious action or abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationMedical EvidenceCredibilityReconsiderationFull Board ReviewNewly Discovered EvidenceCausal RelationshipAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionUtility Worker
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. 2014 NYSlipOp 07168 [121 AD3d 1003]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2014

Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Joseph-Sanders

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (Nationwide) initiated a proceeding to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim by Gloria Joseph-Sanders following a hit-and-run accident. Nationwide alleged that Melvin Hammer operated the offending vehicle, which was insured by AutoOne Insurance Company. The Supreme Court initially granted Nationwide's petition, prompting an appeal from AutoOne. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the evidence and concluded that the special referee's determination linking Hammer's vehicle to the accident lacked credible support. Discrepancies in witness descriptions, absence of immediate identification at the scene, and inconsistencies in evidence led to this conclusion. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the amended order, denied Nationwide's petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Uninsured motoristarbitrationhit-and-runevidence credibilityAppellate Divisioninsurance claimmotor vehicle accidentjudicial reviewfactual determinationspecial referee
References
8
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanders v. Gold Key Lease, Inc.

Plaintiff Stacy Sanders filed a class action lawsuit against Gold Key Lease, Inc. and other defendants, alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and state laws. Sanders claimed that the defendants failed to disclose that interest earned on a refundable security deposit constituted a finance charge in her lease agreement. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Sanders' lease was not covered by TILA because her total contractual obligation exceeded the statutory $25,000 limit. The court agreed with the defendants, finding that the plaintiff's total contractual obligation surpassed $25,000, thereby exempting the lease from TILA's disclosure requirements. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing the case without prejudice.

Consumer LeasingTruth in Lending ActTILASecurity DepositFinance Charge DisclosureMotion to DismissSupplemental JurisdictionContractual Obligation LimitClosed-End LeaseFederal Court
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanders v. Quikstak, Inc.

Plaintiff Paul Sanders, an employee, suffered a crushed elbow due to an alleged malfunction of a palletizing machine's loading plate, manufactured by Quikstak Inc. and powered by a hydraulic unit from The Rexroth Corp. Sanders filed suit alleging negligence, strict product liability, and breach of warranty, claiming the machine closed unexpectedly while the control joystick was in a neutral position. Defendant Rexroth moved for summary judgment, asserting a lack of evidence for a specific defect in its hydraulic unit. The court denied Rexroth's motion, without prejudice, citing the incompleteness of discovery and the possibility that further investigation, including documents and depositions, could either reveal a specific defect or allow for an inference of a defect by eliminating other causes of the accident. The court emphasized that additional discovery is needed before such a motion can be properly considered.

Product liabilitySummary judgment denialIncomplete discoveryHydraulic system defectIndustrial accidentPalletizer malfunctionNegligence claimStrict liability claimBreach of warranty claimRule 56(f)
References
14
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 1,342 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