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

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coratti v. Jon Josef Hair & Colour Group

The Workers' Compensation Board denied a claimant's motion to preclude a workers’ compensation carrier’s consultant report, which was based solely on a review of medical records, not an independent medical examination (IME). The claimant argued non-compliance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 137 (1) (b), a provision requiring notice if an IME is performed. The Board concluded the statute does not apply to records-review-only reports. An appellate court affirmed, holding that the plain language of § 137 (1) (b) explicitly refers to practitioners who have performed or will perform an IME, thereby excluding those who solely review records. The court emphasized that statutory interpretation must adhere to plain language, leaving policy arguments to the Legislature.

IME reportsrecords reviewWorkers' Compensation Lawstatutory interpretationpreclusion motioncausationoccupational illnessdue processlegislative intent

References

Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 23398 [81 Misc 3d 21]

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 30, 2023

Associated Plastic Surgeons & Consultants, P.C. v. Global Commodities, Inc.

Plaintiff, Associated Plastic Surgeons & Consultants, P.C., filed a commercial claims action against Global Commodities, Inc. for $5,000 for unpaid medical services provided to an alleged employee. Plaintiff claimed defendant agreed to pay privately. The District Court dismissed the action after excluding a document detailing telephone conversations, which plaintiff argued was admissible under the business records exception or relaxed commercial claims evidence rules. The Appellate Term affirmed the dismissal, ruling that plaintiff failed to prove the patient was injured during employment or that the document was admissible as a business record, thus failing to establish defendant's liability for the medical bill. The court emphasized that while commercial claims courts are not bound by strict evidence rules, judgments cannot rest solely on hearsay.

Commercial claimsMedical servicesUnpaid billsBusiness records exceptionHearsayEvidence rulesEmploymentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate reviewSubstantial justice

References

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

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

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

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 10, 2017

Mitchell v. SUNY Upstate Medical University

Plaintiff Robbie Mitchell sued SUNY Upstate Medical Center for alleged Title VII violations, including race discrimination and retaliation, after experiencing a series of adverse employment actions. These actions included reassignment, disciplinary notices (NODs), a mandatory medical examination, a formal counseling memorandum, a verbal dispute, and eventual termination. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for most claims and that their actions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The court granted summary judgment in favor of SUNY Upstate Medical Center, concluding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of discrimination or that retaliation was the but-for cause of the challenged employment actions, and consequently, the case was closed.

Title VIICivil Rights ActEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkWorkplace ConductDisciplinary ActionPaid Administrative Leave

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Yklik Medical Supply, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance

Plaintiff Yklik Medical Supply, Inc., a medical supply provider, sued Allstate Insurance Company to recover $317 in unpaid medical bills for equipment supplied to its assignor, Tammy Agosto. Yklik moved for summary judgment, asserting proper bill submission and Allstate's failure to timely pay or deny the claim. Allstate argued that the charges exceeded the Workers' Compensation fee schedule and that a partial payment had been made. The court found that Yklik established a prima facie case. The central issue was whether Allstate's fee schedule defense was precluded due to its failure to issue a timely denial within 30 days as mandated by Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-3.5. The court ruled that since Allstate waited 56 days to send its denial, it was precluded from raising the fee schedule defense, and therefore, summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff.

No-fault insurancesummary judgmenttimely denialfee schedulepreclusion ruleinsurance lawmedical supplybilling practicespersonal injury protectionassignor

References

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

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

ABC Medical Management, Inc. v. GEICO General Insurance

The case addresses whether a plaintiff-assignee medical equipment supplier can recover no-fault first-party benefits when a chiropractor, rather than a physician, issued the prescription. Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company moved for summary judgment, arguing that Education Law § 6551 prohibits chiropractors from prescribing such items. The court denied GEICO's motion, ruling that chiropractors are permitted to prescribe TENS units, thermophore devices, and similar medical supplies, as these do not constitute 'drugs or medicines' under the Education Law. Furthermore, the court found that GEICO failed to properly present its medical necessity defense and that the contested issues should be determined by a trier of fact.

No-Fault BenefitsChiropractic PrescriptionMedical EquipmentEducation Law § 6551Summary JudgmentMedical NecessityTENS UnitThermophoreCervical CollarLumbar Support

References

Showing 1-10 of 8,835 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

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

Medical malpracticeHIV exposureNeedle stick injuryWorkers' CompensationFellow employee ruleIndependent contractorPhysician negligenceEmployer liabilityAppellate reviewNew York law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coratti v. Jon Josef Hair & Colour Group

IME reportsrecords reviewWorkers' Compensation Lawstatutory interpretationpreclusion motioncausationoccupational illnessdue processlegislative intent

References

Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 23398 [81 Misc 3d 21]

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 30, 2023

Associated Plastic Surgeons & Consultants, P.C. v. Global Commodities, Inc.

Commercial claimsMedical servicesUnpaid billsBusiness records exceptionHearsayEvidence rulesEmploymentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate reviewSubstantial justice

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

No-fault benefitsMedical necessityBiofeedback treatmentExpert testimonyDirected verdictInsurance lawChronic pain syndromeBack injuryCPT codesBurden of proof

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cummins v. North Medical Family Physicians

Workers' CompensationCounsel FeesAttorney FeesMedical TreatmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawLienCompensation DefinitionAppellate ReviewBoard Decision

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Rechenberger v. Nassau County Medical Center

Medical MalpracticeLate Notice of ClaimNassau CountyHip FractureSurgical ErrorContinuous Treatment DoctrineActual NoticePrejudiceAppellate ReviewMunicipal Corporation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 10, 2017

Mitchell v. SUNY Upstate Medical University

Title VIICivil Rights ActEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkWorkplace ConductDisciplinary ActionPaid Administrative Leave

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Yklik Medical Supply, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance

No-fault insurancesummary judgmenttimely denialfee schedulepreclusion ruleinsurance lawmedical supplybilling practicespersonal injury protectionassignor

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Fraser v. Brunswick Hospital Medical Center, Inc.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' CompensationAffirmative DefenseSpecial EmployeeCoemployeePreclusive EffectTriable Issue of FactDoctor-Patient RelationshipAppellate ReviewHospital Liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

ABC Medical Management, Inc. v. GEICO General Insurance

No-Fault BenefitsChiropractic PrescriptionMedical EquipmentEducation Law § 6551Summary JudgmentMedical NecessityTENS UnitThermophoreCervical CollarLumbar Support

References

Showing 1-10 of 8,835 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.