Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ927657

Regular

Mar 24, 2009

SHERRI J. RODNEY-TROULLIER vs. TALBERT MEDICAL GROUP, ST. PAUL/TRAVELERS

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant sustained admitted injuries and was treating with Dr. Sobol within the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN). When Dr. Sobol was terminated from the MPN, the defendant failed to properly follow continuity of care procedures as required by law. Specifically, the defendant did not resolve the dispute regarding the applicant's need for continued treatment with Dr. Sobol through the required dispute resolution process under Labor Code section 4062. Therefore, the Appeals Board rescinded the prior order and found that the applicant is entitled to continue treatment, including surgery, with Dr. Sobol.

MPNcontinuity of careterminated providerserious chronic conditionLabor Code section 4616.2AD Rule 9767.10dispute resolutionDr. Sobolsurgery authorizationLabor Code section 4062

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Catlin v. Sobol

The plaintiffs, the Catlins, moved for a declaration that the Edmeston Central School District could not seek tuition reimbursement for their son Dell's education from 1985-1994, arguing the rate was excessive or that Massachusetts was financially responsible. Defendants, John Holdorf, the Edmeston Central School District, and Thomas Sobol (Commissioner of Education for the State of New York), cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the Commissioner's cross-motion to dismiss, as the remaining issue of tuition reimbursement did not involve him. The court then considered if the plaintiffs could amend their complaint to add Massachusetts as a defendant for tuition reimbursement, ultimately concluding such an amendment would be futile. The court determined that Massachusetts bore no financial responsibility because the Catlins unilaterally chose Dell's educational placement in the District upon moving to Massachusetts without consulting their new LEA. Consequently, the court granted the District's cross-motion for summary judgment, denying the plaintiffs' motion as moot and dismissing the complaint with prejudice.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Section 504Tuition ReimbursementSpecial EducationDue Process ClauseEqual Protection ClauseFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 15(a)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 19(b)Collateral EstoppelSummary Judgment

References

Case No. ADJ8000726

Regular

Oct 03, 2016

KONG CHREA vs. WARNER BROTHERS STUDIOS

Defendant Warner Brothers Studios sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision awarding applicant Kong Chrea 77% permanent disability. The defendant argued the assigned permanent disability rating was not supported by substantial medical evidence under Almaraz/Guzman and that the applicant failed to prove his psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by his physical injury. The Board denied reconsideration, finding Dr. Sobol's report provided adequate justification for the rating and that Dr. O'Brien's opinion supported the psychiatric injury finding. A dissenting opinion argued Dr. Sobol's rating was impermissibly based on work function and speculative calculations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Disability RatingAlmaraz/GuzmanSubstantial Medical EvidencePsyche InjuryPredominant CauseAMA GuidesFunctional CapacityAlternative RatingDisability Schedules

References

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

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

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

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

Case No. ADJ6871732

Regular

Oct 26, 2019

TAMORA WHITFIELD vs. ONLINE CAR STEREO, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review a judge's award for Dr. Richards' services. While finding Dr. Sobol was the primary treating physician and referred applicant for lab tests, the Board determined the record lacked sufficient evidence to prove the reasonableness and necessity of Dr. Richards' specific treatments. Consequently, the original award was rescinded, and the case was remanded for further proceedings to develop the record regarding the exact services provided by the lien claimant.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLumbosacral spine injuryDr. RichardsOfficial Medical Fee Schedule (OMFS)Labor Code Section 4622Treatment lienReasonableness of chargesPrimary treating physician

References

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

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

Showing 1-10 of 1,325 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ927657

Regular

Mar 24, 2009

SHERRI J. RODNEY-TROULLIER vs. TALBERT MEDICAL GROUP, ST. PAUL/TRAVELERS

MPNcontinuity of careterminated providerserious chronic conditionLabor Code section 4616.2AD Rule 9767.10dispute resolutionDr. Sobolsurgery authorizationLabor Code section 4062

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Catlin v. Sobol

References

Case No. ADJ8000726

Regular

Oct 03, 2016

KONG CHREA vs. WARNER BROTHERS STUDIOS

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 29, 1999

Faele v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. New York Hospital

Rehabilitation Actemployment discriminationdisability rightsalcoholismindividual liabilitycorporate responsibilityprotective orderdiscoverymotion to dismiss

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Rafiy v. Nassau County Medical Center

Civil RightsDue ProcessFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionRacial DiscriminationRetaliationHospital PrivilegesSummary JudgmentSherman ActAntitrust

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 01, 1989

Murphy v. Blum

References

Case No. ADJ6871732

Regular

Oct 26, 2019

TAMORA WHITFIELD vs. ONLINE CAR STEREO, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Roginsky v. County of Suffolk, NY

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationADEAMotion to DismissConstructive DischargeEmployer-Employee RelationshipBut-For CausationPleading StandardsFederal Civil ProcedureNew York Law

References

Case No. ADJ7877096

Regular

Jan 23, 2017

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

Petition for ReconsiderationMedical OpinionPsoriatic ArthritisDiabetesHeadachesIndustrially CausedSubstantial Medical EvidenceDevelop the RecordOrthopedic InjuriesPsyche

References

Showing 1-10 of 1,325 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.