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
Oct 17, 2012

Douyon v. NY Medical Health Care, P.C.

Plaintiff Gabrielle Douyon sued Seymour Schneider, N.Y. Medical Health Care, P.C., Faraidoon Daniel Golyan, M.D., and Kourosh Golyan, alleging unfair debt collection practices under the FDCPA and NY GBL § 349, along with intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. The lawsuit stemmed from attempts to collect an alleged medical debt following Douyon's emergency heart surgery performed by Dr. Golyan. Both parties sought summary judgment. The court granted Plaintiff partial summary judgment on FDCPA violations related to statutory disclosures and a threatening voicemail. However, many other FDCPA and NY GBL claims were denied due to factual disputes, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed for lack of medical evidence, with negligence claims partially allowed to proceed on the basis of fear for physical safety.

Fair Debt Collections Practices ActNew York General Business Law § 349Debt CollectionSummary JudgmentEmotional DistressNegligenceAgency RelationshipVicarious LiabilityFreelance Debt CollectorUnfair and Deceptive Practices
References
105
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Brookdale University Hospital & Medical Center

Eulalia Perez was admitted to Brookdale University Hospital on November 16, 2010, and treated for various medical conditions before being discharged on December 7. She died two days later. Her family, Ivan and Irma Perez, sued Brookdale and other defendants, alleging a violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and state-law claims of wrongful death and negligence. The court granted Brookdale's motion for summary judgment on the EMTALA claim, determining that the hospital fulfilled its EMTALA duties once Mrs. Perez was stabilized, and any subsequent issues were outside the statute's scope. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, leading to the dismissal of all claims against all parties.

EMTALAEmergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor ActMedical MalpracticeNegligenceWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentSupplemental JurisdictionPatient DumpingHospital DischargeFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lapir v. Maimonides Medical Center

Olga Lapir sued her former employer, Maimonides Medical Center (MMC), and her union, Local 1199, under the Labor Management Relations Act. She alleged that MMC breached their collective bargaining agreement by terminating her employment without good cause and that the union failed to process her grievance, breaching its duty of fair representation. Lapir was fired as a blood bank technician after an incident where she assisted a doctor in locating special blood, violating hospital confidentiality and blood segregation policies. The court found that the union's investigation and defense were not arbitrary or in bad faith, and its decision not to pursue arbitration was rational, especially given Lapir's admitted misconduct. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, dismissing Lapir's complaint.

Labor RelationsDuty of Fair RepresentationSummary Judgment MotionWrongful Termination ClaimCollective BargainingGrievance ArbitrationHospital Blood Bank PolicyEmployee ConfidentialityUnion Due DiligenceFederal District Court
References
15
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02031
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2022

Perez v. NES Med. Servs. of N.Y., P.C.

Francisco R. Perez and his wife sued NES Medical Services of New York, P.C. for medical malpractice, alleging failure to timely diagnose and treat a spinal epidural abscess. NES, which contracted with Lutheran Medical Center's emergency department, moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not vicariously liable as the physicians were independent contractors. The Supreme Court granted NES's motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that NES failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding the employment status of the emergency room physicians. The court emphasized that control over the method and means of work is critical in determining contractor vs. employee status, and NES did not provide sufficient evidence.

Medical MalpracticeVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentEmergency RoomSpinal Epidural AbscessAppellate ReviewEmployment StatusTriable Issues of Fact
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2011

Rolleri v. Mastic Beach Ambulance Co.

Claimant, a volunteer emergency medical technician, sought workers' compensation benefits after allegedly slipping on black ice in his driveway while responding to an emergency call in January 2010, resulting in neck and left leg injuries. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board disallowed the claim, citing claimant's lack of credibility and failure to establish a compensable accident. The Board's decision was affirmed on appeal. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination, noting significant inconsistencies in the medical records regarding the cause of injuries and the claimant's prior medical history.

Volunteer EMTSlip and FallCredibilityCompensable AccidentSubstantial EvidenceMedical Record InconsistenciesNeck InjuryLeft Leg InjuryAppellate ReviewNew York Workers' Compensation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Queens Blvd. Medical, P.C. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

The plaintiff, Queens Blvd. Medical, P.C., sought $950 in first-party no-fault benefits for biofeedback medical services provided to its assignor for lower back and chronic pain syndrome. The central issue at trial was the medical necessity of these services under Insurance Law § 5102 (a) (1). The plaintiff established a prima facie case with expert testimony from a board-certified neurologist affirming the medical appropriateness of biofeedback. The defendant insurance company failed to present admissible evidence to disprove medical necessity, as its expert was deemed incompetent to testify on biofeedback for back pain. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict, awarding judgment for $950 along with statutory costs, interest, and attorney's fees.

No-fault benefitsMedical necessityBiofeedback treatmentExpert testimonyDirected verdictInsurance lawChronic pain syndromeBack injuryCPT codesBurden of proof
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cummins v. North Medical Family Physicians

A claimant sustained a work-related back injury and sought continued medical treatment, which was initially authorized. Disputes over authorization led the claimant to retain an attorney. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge authorized continued medical treatment but denied counsel fees, stating no "money passing" occurred. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this decision. The claimant appealed, arguing the Board unconstitutionally applied Workers’ Compensation Law § 24, misinterpreted the statute regarding fee payment from medical benefits, and abused its discretion. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that counsel fees must be paid from "compensation," defined as a money allowance, and medical benefits are not considered "compensation" for this purpose, thus finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationCounsel FeesAttorney FeesMedical TreatmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawLienCompensation DefinitionAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00361 [124 AD3d 636]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2015

Williams v. Jamaica Hospital Medical Center

The infant plaintiff alleged personal injuries resulting from a delayed transport by the City of New York's Emergency Medical Service during his mother's labor. Approximately four years after the alleged negligence, the plaintiff served a notice of claim and moved to have it deemed timely or for leave to serve a late notice. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion and denied the City's cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this order, finding that the City did not acquire actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim within the statutory 90-day period or a reasonable time thereafter. The court further determined that the plaintiff's delay substantially prejudiced the City's ability to defend the action and that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the significant delay, noting that infancy alone without a demonstrated nexus to the delay was insufficient.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawActual Knowledge RequirementPrejudice to MunicipalityReasonable Excuse for DelayInfancyPersonal InjuryMedical Malpractice AllegationAppellate ReviewMunicipal Negligence
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2016

Francis v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center

Plaintiff Pauline Francis, a former Emergency Department Technician at Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, brought suit against her employer and supervisor Betty O'Hagan for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Francis, a breast cancer survivor suffering from lymphedema, alleged her frequent absences due to her condition were tolerated until Ms. O'Hagan's strict enforcement of attendance policies led to her termination. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that while Francis was disabled, she failed to demonstrate she was 'otherwise qualified' for her job, as regular and predictable attendance was an essential function that could not be reasonably accommodated by unlimited sick days or unavailable light duty. Consequently, ADA claims were dismissed with prejudice, and state law claims were dismissed without prejudice due to declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActEmployment LawSummary JudgmentReasonable AccommodationLymphedemaBreast Cancer SurvivorAbsenteeismTermination of EmploymentEastern District of New York
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rechenberger v. Nassau County Medical Center

Edward Rechenberger suffered hip fractures and underwent two operations at Nassau County Medical Center in May 1982. Following a re-injury and later diagnosis, he learned the surgical hardware was improperly implanted, leading to further operations. Mr. Rechenberger sought leave to serve a late notice of claim against the medical center. The Supreme Court initially denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the hospital had actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim within the statutory 90-day period through its own medical records. The court concluded that the delay in serving the notice of claim was not substantially prejudicial to the hospital, and thus, granted the petitioners leave to serve the late notice of claim.

Medical MalpracticeLate Notice of ClaimNassau CountyHip FractureSurgical ErrorContinuous Treatment DoctrineActual NoticePrejudiceAppellate ReviewMunicipal Corporation
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 8,897 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