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
Jun 19, 2001

Carman v. Abter

A nurse employed by a medical center providing dialysis services alleged she contracted HIV after a needle stick injury sustained while drawing blood from a patient. She filed a medical malpractice action against the medical center, a salaried physician (Dr. Ma) employed by a nephrology group associated with the center, and an independent infectious disease consultant (Dr. Abter) used by the group. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint against all defendants, applying the Workers' Compensation Law's "fellow employee rule." On appeal, the judgment was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal for the medical center and Dr. Ma, concluding their services to the plaintiff were employment-related and not available to the general public. However, the complaint against Dr. Abter was reinstated, as the fellow-employee rule was found not to apply to him given his status as an independent consultant.

Medical malpracticeHIV exposureNeedle stick injuryWorkers' CompensationFellow employee ruleIndependent contractorPhysician negligenceEmployer liabilityAppellate reviewNew York law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eckman v. Cipolla

The plaintiff, Susan Eckman, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to defendants Anthony Cipolla, City of New York, New York City Fire Department, and Gerard J. Moriarty in a medical malpractice action. Eckman sought damages for the alleged wrongful death and pain and suffering of her late husband, James M. Manganaro III, who died by suicide, asserting that Cipolla failed to adequately monitor his psychotropic medication and Moriarty failed to perform a complete mental status assessment despite suicidal ideation. The defendants successfully demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, presenting expert affirmations, deposition testimony, and relevant medical records. The appellate court found that the plaintiff's expert affidavit was conclusory, speculative, and unsupported by the record, failing to raise a triable issue of fact. Consequently, the Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the defendants was affirmed.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathSuicideSummary JudgmentPsychotropic MedicationSocial Work MalpracticeExpert WitnessProximate CauseAppellate ReviewKings County
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 2005

Roberts v. El-Hajal

Plaintiff initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit, alleging that defendant Marlene El-Hajal negligently failed to diagnose a rare seizure disorder in her infant son. The complaint also sought to hold defendant E.J. Noble Hospital vicariously liable for El-Hajal's actions. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the hospital, concluding that El-Hajal was an independent contractor and the hospital lacked legal authority to supervise her medical practice. Plaintiff appealed this decision, additionally asserting that a hospital-employed nurse, Joy Markwick, was negligent for not recording and reporting telephone calls. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding no evidence of an employer-employee relationship between the hospital and El-Hajal during the relevant period, and dismissing the claims against the nurse due to insufficient evidence.

Medical MalpracticeVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentHospital LiabilityPhysician NegligenceNurse NegligenceSeizure DisorderEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fraser v. Brunswick Hospital Medical Center, Inc.

In this medical malpractice action, the defendant The Brunswick Hospital Medical Center, Inc. appealed an order that granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike its workers’ compensation coverage defense. Concurrently, the plaintiff cross-appealed the dismissal of the complaint against defendant S. Fong. The appellate court affirmed the decision to strike the workers’ compensation defense for The Brunswick Hospital Medical Center, Inc., citing its participation and lack of appeal in the prior Workers’ Compensation Board hearing. However, the dismissal of the complaint against S. Fong was reversed, as S. Fong was not present at the Board hearing, thus preclusion did not apply, and a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the injury was employment-related. The court also rejected S. Fong's argument regarding the absence of a doctor-patient relationship.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' CompensationAffirmative DefenseSpecial EmployeeCoemployeePreclusive EffectTriable Issue of FactDoctor-Patient RelationshipAppellate ReviewHospital Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2001

Fonville v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which, upon reargument, adhered to a prior decision to dismiss a medical malpractice claim against the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC). The claim alleged that HHC's emergency medical services (EMS) improperly treated the decedent. The appellate court reversed the order, reinstating the claim concerning improper treatment by EMS workers. The court reasoned that although municipalities generally have immunity for governmental functions, once an affirmative action is voluntarily undertaken, it must be performed with due care. Consequently, the claim of improper treatment was reinstated, while allegations of nonfeasance remained dismissed.

Medical MalpracticeMunicipal ImmunitySpecial RelationshipVoluntary UndertakingDue CareCPLR 3211(a)(7)Motion to DismissClaim ReinstatementAppellate ReviewEMS Negligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2011

Swanson v. Raju

The plaintiffs, Michael Swanson and his wife, appealed decisions from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, regarding their medical malpractice claim against Dr. Raghava Raju. Swanson's severed tendon was surgically repaired by Raju, followed by immobilization and prescribed physical therapy. Plaintiffs alleged Raju's post-operative care, specifically prolonged immobilization and delayed therapy, constituted malpractice. The Supreme Court granted Raju's motion for summary judgment, which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court found that while plaintiffs presented expert testimony on departure from the standard of care, their expert's affirmations regarding proximate cause were conclusory and insufficient to rebut Raju's prima facie showing, thus failing to raise a triable issue of fact on causation.

Medical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseStandard of CarePost-operative CarePhysical TherapyTendon InjuryImmobilizationExpert Testimony
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 1987

Schaefer v. Manfredi

Defendant Bondi appealed an order from Suffolk County Supreme Court that denied his motion for summary judgment to dismiss a legal malpractice complaint. The plaintiffs alleged that Bondi's law partner, Manfredi, assured them that workers' compensation medical coverage, including for unperformed surgery, would be part of a settlement in an underlying negligence action. However, this coverage was not explicitly addressed in the settlement and was subsequently disallowed by the carrier. The Supreme Court found material issues of fact, noting Manfredi's admission of being incorrect about the medical coverage. Citing Cohen v Lipsig, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, as a legal malpractice claim is viable when a settlement is compelled by attorney mistakes.

Legal MalpracticeSummary JudgmentSettlementWorkers' CompensationMedical CoverageAppellate CourtAttorney NegligenceSuffolk County
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ochal v. Television Technology Corp.

David Ochal suffered severe electrocution injuries in a work-related accident in February 1988. His personal injury action was settled by stipulation in November 1999, which included a structured settlement and an agreement by a third-party defendant to pay $50,000, waive a substantial workers' compensation lien, and cover pre-settlement medical bills. In May 2004, Ochal moved to enforce the stipulation, seeking payment for approximately $20,000 in medical bills and a pro rata share of litigation costs from the third-party defendant's workers' compensation carrier. The Supreme Court denied his motion, and Ochal appealed. The appellate court affirmed the denial, ruling that Ochal had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by submitting medical bills 4.5 years post-settlement and that his claim for pro rata litigation costs lacked merit due to his failure to reserve this right during the settlement.

Structured SettlementStipulation of SettlementContract InterpretationImplied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingWorkers' Compensation LienMedical BillsPro Rata Share of Litigation CostsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractWaiver of Rights
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 1997

Mushatt v. Cayuga Medical Center

Plaintiff appealed a judgment favoring defendants Cayuga Medical Center and the estate of her obstetrician, Frank Flacco, in a medical malpractice case. Plaintiff alleged that negligent care during her son Quandale's birth on August 15, 1990, led to his severe spastic cerebral palsy, mental retardation, and seizure disorder, attributing it to oxygen deprivation caused by a delayed Cesarean section. Defendants argued the oxygen deprivation occurred prior to delivery due to an acute event and chronic condition, and their care met standards. The jury sided with defendants. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the verdict's weight, the application of CPLR 4519 (Dead Man's Statute), the admission of testimony regarding her drug and alcohol use, and a missing witness charge. The Supreme Court Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, finding no errors warranting reversal.

Medical MalpracticeBirth InjuryCerebral PalsyOxygen DeprivationCesarean SectionExpert WitnessDead Man's StatuteCPLR 4519Appellate ReviewNegligence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Arena v. Crown Asphalt Co.

Thomas Arena (decedent) sustained a work-related foot injury in 1980, leading to workers' compensation benefits and subsequent renal failure. Decedent and his wife (claimant) filed a third-party medical malpractice action against treating physicians and the hospital, which was settled in 1988 through a structured settlement. A stipulation between the carrier and decedent outlined the carrier's offset credit against decedent's workers' compensation claim and reserved rights against future death benefits claims, but claimant was not a signatory. After decedent's death in 1993, claimant filed for death benefits, prompting the carrier to seek an offset credit from the third-party settlement proceeds. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially found the carrier entitled to a credit, but later reversed itself, ruling against any credit. The appeals court determined that the carrier sufficiently preserved its offset rights through a general release signed by both claimant and decedent. However, it found no clear agreement on the specific offset amount in the stipulation or settlement that applied to claimant's death benefits. Consequently, the Board's decision of zero credit was reversed, and the matter was remitted for a factual determination of the precise credit amount.

Offset CreditThird-Party SettlementDeath Benefits ClaimRenal FailureMedical MalpracticeStipulation AgreementGeneral ReleaseWaiver of RightsStructured SettlementApportionment of Damages
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 10,117 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