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
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

Barter v. Murphy

Richard J. Bartek, Jr., an employee of Glenn H. Benedict, was injured in December 1994 when he fell from scaffolding while working on Carol L. Murphy's barn. Bartek sued Murphy, alleging violations of Labor Law § 240. Murphy then filed a third-party action against Benedict for common-law indemnification. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment to Bartek on liability and dismissed Murphy's third-party complaint against Benedict. This appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, enacted post-accident but pre-litigation, extinguished Benedict's common-law indemnification obligation because Bartek did not suffer a 'grave injury'. The cross appeal was dismissed as the plaintiffs were not aggrieved by the dismissal of the third-party action.

Workers' Compensation Law § 11Labor Law § 240Common-Law IndemnificationGrave InjurySummary JudgmentCross AppealThird-Party ActionContracts ClauseScaffolding AccidentAppellate Division
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Murphy v. General Electric Co.

Plaintiff Felix J. Murphy brought an action against General Electric Company (GE) under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and New York state law, alleging age-based transfer and termination. Murphy sought declaratory, injunctive relief, and damages. GE filed motions to preclude expert testimony and for summary judgment. The court granted in part and denied in part GE's motion to preclude expert testimony. The court granted summary judgment for GE on the time-barred New York Human Rights Law claims and the abandoned ERISA claims, and also on Murphy's ADEA claims for failure to rehire and disparate impact. However, the court denied GE's motion for summary judgment on Murphy's ADEA disparate treatment claim, concluding that material issues of fact existed regarding GE's reasons for Murphy's transfer and termination, supported by statistical evidence and alleged discriminatory statements.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationADEADisparate TreatmentSummary JudgmentExpert WitnessEEOC DeterminationStatistical EvidenceContinuing Violation DoctrineReduction in Workforce
References
49
Case No. ADJ1398358 (SFO 0458408) ADJ235796 (SFO 0453152)
Regular
Nov 29, 2011

MARYELLEN MURPHY vs. SAN LEANDRO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision awarding applicant Maryellen Murphy 78% permanent disability for bilateral knee and back injuries. The Board adopted the judge's reasoning, which found the applicant's QME's opinion persuasive and insufficient evidence to apportion knee disability. The Board also admonished the defendant for repeatedly referencing excluded evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaryellen MurphySan Leandro Unified School DistrictKeenan & AssociatesADJ1398358ADJ235796Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedSub-rosa videoDr. Lavorgna
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05500 [152 AD3d 859]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2017

Claim of Murphy v. Newburgh Enlarged City School District

Claimant Marie Murphy sustained work-related injuries. Her employer, Newburgh Enlarged City School District, sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d), citing Murphy's preexisting asthma and knee injuries. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's determination that the employer was entitled to reimbursement, finding insufficient evidence that Murphy's asthma hindered her employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision regarding asthma, noting that controlled conditions do not constitute a hindrance. However, the Court reversed the Board's decision because it failed to address the issue of reimbursement based on Murphy's osteoarthritis in her right knee, remitting the matter for further consideration of that specific issue.

Workers' Compensation ReimbursementSpecial Disability FundPreexisting ConditionPermanent ImpairmentGeneral EmployabilityAsthmaOsteoarthritisMaterially and Substantially Greater DisabilityWorkers' Compensation Board ReversalAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sergeant v. Murphy Family Trust

The dissenting opinion concurs with the majority on all points except whether the third-party plaintiffs, Murphy Family Trust and Murphy and Nolan, Inc., presented sufficient evidence to defeat a summary judgment motion filed by D.R. Casey Construction Corp. The dissent agrees that D.R. Casey proved the plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. However, the dissenting judge argues that Murphy failed to provide competent medical evidence to establish an issue of fact. The dissent emphasizes that for a brain injury to constitute a 'grave injury' leading to total disability, the brain injury itself must cause the total disability, not a combination of injuries. Consequently, the dissenting judge would affirm the dismissal of the third-party complaint.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Summary Judgment MotionThird-Party LiabilityBrain Injury DisabilityMedical Evidence SufficiencyPermanent Total DisabilityDissenting OpinionAppellate ReviewIssue of Fact
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Murphy

Chief Judge Weinstein delivered a sentencing opinion for Maureen Murphy, found guilty of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), mail fraud, and obstruction of justice. Murphy, a confidential secretary, facilitated insurance frauds and later tried to impede a grand jury investigation. The court, citing concerns about escalating prison populations and punishment efficacy, opted for an unconventional sentence of home detention and probation, suspending a potential jail term. A $5,000 fine, payable over five years, was also imposed. This decision emphasized rehabilitation outside incarceration, cost-effectiveness of alternative sanctions, and the need for public accountability.

RICO ViolationMail FraudObstruction of JusticeSentencing OpinionHome DetentionProbationAlternative SentencingWhite Collar CrimeCriminal Justice ReformJudicial Discretion
References
3
Case No. No. 36, No. 37
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2023

Bryan Scurry v. New York City Housing Authority, Estate of Tayshana Murphy v. New York City Housing Authority

This case involves two consolidated appeals concerning negligence claims against the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) for injuries and deaths resulting from intruder attacks in public housing complexes with broken exterior door locks. In both cases, the victims (Ms. Crushshon and Ms. Murphy) were targeted by assailants who gained access through negligently maintained doors. NYCHA sought summary judgment, arguing that the targeted nature of the attacks severed the causal link between its negligence and the harm. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of summary judgment in Scurry and reversed the grant of summary judgment in Murphy, reiterating that proximate cause is generally a question of fact for the jury. The court emphasized that the risk of intruders harming residents through unsecured doors is precisely the risk that renders a landlord negligent, and that an assailant's intent does not automatically sever the causal chain.

NegligencePremises LiabilityProximate CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLandlord DutyForeseeabilityTargeted AttackSecurity MeasuresBroken Locks
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 1989

Murphy v. American Home Products Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed an appeal concerning age discrimination. The plaintiff, Joseph Murphy, alleged wrongful termination by his employer, American Home Products Corporation, due to age. The trial court had ruled in favor of the defendant, having limited the testimony of a crucial witness for the plaintiff, Mr. Lalicki, whose testimony aimed to demonstrate a discriminatory attitude by a corporate vice-president towards older employees. The appellate court determined that excluding Mr. Lalicki's testimony was an abuse of discretion, as it was highly relevant to prove the employer's discriminatory intent and that the stated reason for discharge was a pretext. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, reinstated the complaint, and remanded the case for a new trial, emphasizing the importance of allowing relevant evidence in discrimination cases.

age discriminationwrongful terminationevidentiary rulingwitness testimonyabuse of discretionemployment lawpretextdiscriminatory intentappellate procedurejury trial
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Murphy v. International Business MacHines Corp.

This case involves five pro se plaintiffs who filed a complaint against International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), alleging constructive discharge in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). IBM sought to dismiss the complaint on multiple grounds, including the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies by not filing charges with the EEOC. The court found that Kamalakar V. Narsule and Stephen M. Zick had not filed EEOC charges, leading to the dismissal of their claims. Erach Maneska Singpurwala's claim was dismissed due to untimeliness and issue preclusion, as he had previously sued IBM on the same facts. Michael John Shelpack's claim was also dismissed as untimely, having filed his EEOC charge more than 300 days after his employment ended. Lastly, Peter J. Murphy's claim was dismissed because he had signed a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to sue IBM for age discrimination, accepting a severance package. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against IBM for all plaintiffs.

Age DiscriminationConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentExhaustion of Administrative RemediesEEOCRight to Sue LetterUntimely FilingWaiver of ClaimsOlder Workers Benefit Protection ActRes Judicata
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 76 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