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. 04 Civ. 8987(LBS)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2005

Doo Nam Yang v. ACBL CORP.

Plaintiff Doo Nam Yang sued ACBL Corp., Gold Lee Jewelry Co., and Han Sung Lee for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, specifically regarding unpaid overtime and spread of hours wages. Yang also brought a common law claim for conversion, alleging deductions from his wages were not remitted for taxes or returned to him. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, with Judge Sand presiding, conducted a bench trial and found the defendants liable. The court awarded Yang a total of $70,960.57 in damages, including liquidated damages and prejudgment interest, for which all defendants were held jointly and severally liable.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour ViolationsOvertime PaySpread of Hours PayConversion TortWillful ViolationLiquidated DamagesPrejudgment InterestEmployer Liability
References
26
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03169 [161 AD3d 813]
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2018

Yao Zong Wu v. Zhen Jia Yang

This case concerns an appeal from orders regarding personal injuries sustained by Yao Zong Wu, who fell from a ladder while working on property owned by Zhen Jia Yang et al. The plaintiff alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss both causes of action. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion. However, it modified the second order by reinstating the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, concluding that the defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that the ladder provided proper protection or that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.21 (b) (4) (ii), was affirmed, as the alleged violation was found not to be a proximate cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryLabor LawLadder FallSummary JudgmentProximate CauseAppellate ReviewConstruction Site SafetyIndustrial CodeSafety DevicesWorkplace Accident
References
12
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. 2022 NY Slip Op 04761
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2022

Zong Wang Yang v. City of New York

The case involves Zong Wang Yang, an injured worker, and his wife suing various defendants for personal injuries sustained from a fall at a construction site due to inadequate planking over a shaft. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability against the City defendants (City of New York, Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation, and Plaza Construction, LLC). On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this denial, granting the plaintiffs' motion, asserting that the shaft was not properly protected and the worker's alleged comparative negligence was not the sole proximate cause. The court also affirmed the denial of ZHN Contracting Corporation's motion to dismiss negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and upheld the granting of contractual indemnification to Plaza Construction, LLC from A-Tech Electric Enterprises, Inc.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityElevation-Related HazardProximate CauseContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law NegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityConstruction AccidentPersonal Injury
References
27
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

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. ADJ6622491
Regular
Jun 03, 2014

PAO YANG vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, ADJ6622491, involves applicant Pao Yang and defendant County of Fresno. The Board dismissed Yang's Petition for Reconsideration. This dismissal was based on the Petition being untimely filed, as it was submitted more than 25 days after the September 8, 2011, Order, violating the 20-day filing period plus 5-day mailing extension. The Board adopted the WCJ's Report and Recommendation in reaching this decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013WCJ ReportAdministrative Law JudgeDismissalPermissibly Self-InsuredYork Insurance Services Group
References
0
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 1,330 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