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
Mar 04, 2005

Warren v. International Business MacHines Corp.

Michael Warren, a U.S. Army Reserve member, sued IBM for employment discrimination after his termination shortly after returning from a training mission. He alleged discrimination based on his military service, violating USERRA and New York Military Law. IBM moved for summary judgment, asserting Warren was fired for making a death threat and violating a zero-tolerance policy. The court found that a reasonable jury could determine IBM's stated reason was pretextual and that Warren's reservist status was a motivating factor in his dismissal. Consequently, the court denied IBM's motion for summary judgment on the core discrimination claims (§ 4311 and § 317 ¶ 4) but granted it for the reemployment claims (§ 4312 and § 317 ¶ 1) and the § 4316 claim, interpreting "period of service" as consecutive days.

Employment DiscriminationMilitary Service DiscriminationUSERRANew York Military LawSummary JudgmentPretextReservist RightsWrongful TerminationStatutory InterpretationBurden of Proof
References
26
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02454 [160 AD3d 714]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2018

Moody v. Kelly Drye & Warren, LLP

Plaintiff William Moody, a maintenance worker, sustained back injuries while lifting a heavy garbage bag during his employment for a nonparty providing property management services. He commenced a personal injury action against Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP (incorrectly sued as Kelly Drye & Warren, LLP), a tenant in the building where the accident occurred. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment by demonstrating the garbage bag was not over an agreed weight and the injury was an inherent risk of the plaintiff's work. The defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was therefore granted.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMaintenance WorkerWorkplace AccidentPremises LiabilityInherent RiskDuty of CareNegligenceTenant Liability
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06279 [243 AD3d 476]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2025

InkMango, Inc. v. Warren

This case concerns defamation claims brought by InkMango, Inc., doing business as The Juggernaut, an independent media startup, against reporter Katie Warren and news organization Business Insider. The plaintiff alleged that a March 5, 2024 article written by Warren contained false and defamatory statements. The Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed the complaint under CPLR 3211 (g) and awarded defendants costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 70-a (1) (a). The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division held that the defamation claims involved 'public petition and participation,' triggering the anti-SLAPP law and requiring plaintiff to demonstrate a 'substantial basis' in law by clear and convincing evidence of actual malice. The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet this heightened burden, as the complaint did not sufficiently allege actual malice or that the entire article was defamatory, nor were arguments regarding the initial headline properly preserved. The court also affirmed the award of attorneys' fees to the defendants.

DefamationAnti-SLAPPLibelActual MalicePublic Petition and ParticipationAppellate ReviewDismissal of ComplaintAttorneys' FeesMedia LawFirst Department
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08300 [177 AD3d 1370]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2019

Warren v. E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Gary E. Warren et al., commenced a negligence action against E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc., and Verizon New York, Inc., seeking damages for injuries sustained by Gary E. Warren on a sidewalk outside his employer, Verizon. The Supreme Court, Erie County, granted Verizon's motion for summary judgment, concluding that workers' compensation benefits were the exclusive remedy. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law, and thus the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the summary judgment motion at that stage. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings after a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board.

NegligenceWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureRemittalScope of EmploymentSidewalk AccidentErie CountyFourth Department
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2011

Warren v. United States

Plaintiff Daniel Warren initiated an action against Federal and State Defendants, challenging the constitutionality of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), the validity of the New York-Seneca Nation Gaming Compact, and a New York state law, while also alleging breach of trust obligations by federal defendants. The defendants filed motions to dismiss, and the plaintiff sought to amend the complaint. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend, deeming the proposed amendments futile. It granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiff lacked standing for the Tenth Amendment and IGRA claims against federal defendants and that the Eleventh Amendment protected state defendants from state law claims. Furthermore, tribal sovereign immunity was found to apply to the proposed Seneca Nation defendants. Consequently, the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Indian Gaming Regulatory ActTribal SovereigntyTenth AmendmentEleventh AmendmentStanding (Law)Motion to DismissMotion to AmendAdministrative Procedure ActFederalismJudicial Review
References
74
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. 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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 1,390 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