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

Huntington Hospital v. Huntington Hospital Nurses' Ass'n

Huntington Hospital initiated an action under the Federal Arbitration Act to partially vacate an arbitration award, while the Huntington Hospital Nurses’ Association cross-petitioned to confirm it. The dispute originated from the Hospital unilaterally granting two nurses, Betty Evans and Lynn Meyer, longevity pay credits exceeding the ten-year cap stipulated in their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The arbitrator found the Hospital violated the CBA's sections on pay and exclusive bargaining rights. The arbitrator mandated the Hospital roll back excess credits and recover overpayments. The District Court denied the Hospital's petition, dismissing arguments regarding public policy, manifest disregard for law, and lack of award finality, ultimately confirming the arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawFederal Arbitration ActWage DisputesLongevity PayUnion RightsPublic Policy ExceptionManifest Disregard of LawContract Interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 1975

Buchanan v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

The case concerns an appeal challenging a hospital lien and the application of a contractual period of limitations in an insurance policy. The plaintiff, as executrix of Percy Buchanan, sought to challenge a lien filed by the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and compel Associated Hospital Services (AHS) to cover remaining hospital costs. The lower court initially granted AHS summary judgment, finding the action time-barred. However, the appellate court modified this decision, denying AHS's cross-motion for summary judgment. It ruled that a question of fact existed regarding whether AHS could be estopped from asserting the limitations period, given its silence on claim rejections until after the period had expired.

Hospital LienContractual Limitations PeriodSummary Judgment MotionEquitable EstoppelHealth Insurance PolicyStatute of LimitationsAppellate Court DecisionInsurance Coverage DisputeExecutorshipGroup Health Insurance
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 1996

Campanella v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital

Plaintiff Peter Campanella, a construction laborer, was injured while loading timbers into a dumpster at a building owned by St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital. He was standing in the dumpster, and timbers were being handed down from an 8 to 12 foot elevation without safety devices. He fell while trying to control a particularly heavy timber, injuring his back. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to St. Luke's and Avalanche Wrecking Corp., dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against them, and denied plaintiff's cross-motion. On appeal, the court modified the decision, finding St. Luke’s liable as the owner under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the lack of safety devices for work performed at an elevation, irrespective of supervision. However, the dismissal of the claim against Avalanche Wrecking Corp. was affirmed because plaintiffs failed to show Avalanche supervised the task.

Construction AccidentLabor LawWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentElevation RiskStatutory LiabilityOwner LiabilityAgent LiabilityPersonal InjuryAppellate Division
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Nassau County Correctional Center

Plaintiff Robert Thomas, an inmate, filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Nassau County Correctional Center, Sheriff Edward Reilly, Officer Kenneth H. Williams, Nassau County, and the Director of Nassau County University Hospital, alleging inadequate medical treatment for an injured hand. The Nassau County defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a federal cause of action, arguing the allegations amounted to medical malpractice, not an Eighth Amendment violation. The court found that Thomas failed to allege a sufficiently serious medical condition or deliberate indifference from the defendants. Consequently, the court granted the motion to dismiss the claims against the Nassau County defendants and sua sponte dismissed claims against the director, both without prejudice. The plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint.

Inadequate Medical CareDeliberate IndifferenceEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentSection 1983Prisoner RightsMotion to DismissMedical MalpracticePro Se PlaintiffJail Conditions
References
38
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 09275 [178 AD3d 1057]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2019

Oliver v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.

The plaintiff, Constance Oliver, commenced a medical malpractice action against New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., alleging errors during a January 2014 surgery at Kings County Hospital Center and a subsequent failure to timely diagnose and treat an incisional hernia. The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding the defendant's expert affirmation insufficient to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, particularly regarding the allegations of delayed diagnosis and treatment and speculative causation arguments.

Medical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentIncisional HerniaProximate CauseTimely DiagnosisAppellate ReviewExpert TestimonyBurden of ProofHospital NegligenceKings County Hospital
References
8
Case No. 95-7154
Regular Panel Decision

Lincoln Cercpac v. Health and Hospitals Corp.

This opinion addresses a motion for preliminary injunction and class certification filed by plaintiffs, led by Lincoln Cercpac, against the Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC). Plaintiffs sought to compel HHC to reopen the Children’s Evaluation and Rehabilitation Clinic (CERC), which was closed and its services relocated to Morrisania Center due to budget cuts. The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction, finding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a substantial likelihood of success on their claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Federal Rehabilitation Act. The judge determined that the relocation of services did not constitute discrimination or a denial of benefits. Additionally, the court denied the request for class certification as unnecessary, reasoning that any favorable judgment would inherently benefit all similarly situated individuals.

Americans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActPreliminary InjunctionClass CertificationHealthcare ServicesDevelopmental DisabilitiesClinic ClosureService RelocationBudget CutsIrreparable Harm
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Slaybough v. Nathan Littauer Hospital

Plaintiff, a manual laborer, suffered a severe hand injury and sought emergency care at Nathan Littauer Hospital. Due to significant delays (over six hours) in receiving proper treatment and the wound not being cleaned, his condition deteriorated, leading to failed surgeries performed by Dr. Thomas S. Eagan and permanent injury to his left index finger. Plaintiff sued the hospital and Dr. Eagan for medical malpractice, later discontinuing the claim against Eagan. A jury found the hospital liable, awarding $250,000 for pain and suffering. The hospital appealed, arguing improper denial of summary judgment, insufficient proximate cause proof, and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The appeals court affirmed the judgment against Nathan Littauer Hospital, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of negligence and damages.

Medical MalpracticeHospital NegligenceSurgical ErrorDelayed TreatmentProximate CauseSummary JudgmentVerdict UpheldDamages AwardTendon InjuryHand Surgery
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Edwards v. Jet Blue Airways Corp.

Glenn Edwards initiated a putative class action against Jet Blue Airways Corporation, alleging violations of New York Labor Law, article 19, § 650 et seq., concerning overtime compensation. Edwards claimed that Jet Blue failed to pay him at 1.5 times his regular rate for hours worked beyond 40 that were exchanged with coworkers. Jet Blue sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting an exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) § 213 (b) (3) for air carriers, which it argued was incorporated into New York's 12 NYCRR 142-2.2. The court acknowledged the applicability of the FLSA exemption to Edwards due to Jet Blue's status as an air carrier. However, the court ruled that 12 NYCRR 142-2.2 still mandates overtime pay at 1.5 times the basic minimum hourly rate for exempt employees, which in this context means their regular pay rate plus one half times the New York State minimum wage. Finding that Edwards' complaint sufficiently alleged inadequate overtime compensation under New York law based on this calculation, the court denied Jet Blue's motion to dismiss.

Class actionOvertime payLabor LawFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Railway Labor Act (RLA)Minimum wageAir carrier exemptionWage and hour disputeMotion to dismissNew York employment law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Feldman v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case concerns an action by Robert Feldman, as assignee, to recover on a third-party judgment against the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The original personal injury action involved Alexander Z. Dubicki and Anne Dubicki as plaintiffs, and the Marescos and Dr. Joseph Dashefsky as defendants, with Hospitals Corporation as a third-party defendant. The jury apportioned liability, with Hospitals Corporation found 54% negligent but not directly liable to the Dubickis; its liability was conditional on the Marescos paying the Dubickis an amount exceeding their 10% share. To overcome this impasse, Feldman loaned funds to the Marescos, who then paid the Dubickis, thereby satisfying the judgment against them. The Marescos then assigned their right of contribution from Hospitals Corporation to Feldman. The court found this arrangement valid and proper, rejecting the defendant's claim of a collusive scheme to circumvent the condition precedent established in Klinger v Dudley. The court granted Feldman's cross-motion for summary judgment, entitling him to recover from the Hospitals Corporation.

Third-party judgmentContributionApportionment of damagesSummary judgmentCollusion defenseCondition precedentAssignment of judgmentBona fide loanPublic policyUnjust enrichment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

League of Voluntary Hospitals & Homes v. Local 1199, Drug, Hospital & Health Care Workers Union

The court addresses an application for a preliminary injunction against Local 1199, a union planning a three-day strike. The League of Voluntary Hospitals and Homes of N. Y. sought the injunction following a previous temporary restraining order concerning a one-day strike. The union argued that each planned strike required a new legal proceeding, but the court deemed the strikes "episodic and organically connected." Citing concerns about blocked ingress/egress to hospitals and the union president's threats to "shut down" facilities, the judge found a preliminary injunction necessary under Labor Law § 807 to protect public health and safety. The injunction restrains the union from unlawfully interfering with hospital operations, blocking access, and picketing within certain distances of hospital entrances and emergency rooms.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionStrike ActionUnion ActivityHospital AccessPicketing RegulationsCollective BargainingCivil Disobedience ThreatPublic Health and SafetyIngress Egress Interference
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 4,356 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