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 23, 1977

Milashouskas v. Mercy Hospital

Plaintiff Judith Milashouskas, a nurse, sustained injuries while working at Mercy Hospital and received medical treatment at the hospital's emergency room. She and her husband initiated a medical malpractice action, alleging damages from negligent treatment. Mercy Hospital asserted an affirmative defense under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29(6), arguing the action was barred. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, dismissed this defense, a decision affirmed on appeal. The appellate court found that Milashouskas sought treatment as a member of the public, and the hospital failed to provide evidence linking the medical treatment to her employment. The court emphasized that plaintiffs must still prove their injuries were proximately caused by the alleged negligence, not the underlying accident.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' CompensationAffirmative DefenseNegligenceHospital LiabilityEmergency TreatmentCPLRAppellate ReviewEmployment InjuryCausation
References
1
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

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
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
Mar 29, 2006

Ochei v. Coler/Goldwater Memorial Hospital

Plaintiff Joan Ochei brought an action against Coler/Goldwater Memorial Hospital and New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, alleging discrimination based on race and national origin, a hostile work environment, and retaliation, leading to constructive discharge. Ochei, a Licensed Practical Nurse, claimed inadequate training, negative evaluations, and transfer were discriminatory. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Ochei failed to establish a prima facie case. The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, finding no evidence to support Ochei's claims of discrimination, a hostile work environment, or constructive discharge. Additionally, Coler/Goldwater Memorial Hospital was deemed not a suable entity.

DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Law
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 2002

Edwards v. Mercy Home for Children & Adults, Inc.

A nurse sustained personal injuries after being attacked by a patient, Kelvin Davis, a resident of Mercy Home for Children and Adults, Inc., while attempting a medical procedure at St. Joseph’s Hospital. Davis, diagnosed with profound retardation and aggression, was at the hospital for treatment of violent outbursts. Mercy Home and Davis moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of duty of care. The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the order was modified: summary judgment was granted to Mercy Home, dismissing claims against it, as no special relationship imposing a duty of care to the plaintiff was found. However, Davis's motion for summary judgment was denied due to insufficient evidence presented on his behalf.

Personal InjuryNegligenceSummary JudgmentDuty of CareSpecial RelationshipMentally-Retarded PatientHospital LiabilityEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ConductAppellate Decision
References
7
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
Oct 03, 2000

Claim of Schueler v. Mercy Hospital

Claimant, a nurse at Mercy Hospital, experienced recurring back pain in early 1997 from lifting nonambulatory patients. She was diagnosed with a central lumbar disc herniation, which her neurosurgeon attributed 75% to her work-related injury. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the injury accidental, with proper notice and causal relationship, declaring the claimant totally disabled with 75% related to the work injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing the absence of a specific traumatic event negated an "accidental injury." The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that an accidental injury can accrue gradually if tied to special workplace conditions and that resolving conflicting testimony is within the Board's purview.

Back injuryDisc herniationGradual onset injuryOccupational injuryWorkers' CompensationDisability apportionmentMedical testimonyAppellate reviewNurseLifting injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Turner & Booth Memorial Hospital

This case involves an appeal by a hospital from a Supreme Court judgment that affirmed an arbitrator's award. The arbitrator had ordered the hospital to stop subcontracting laundry services, reinstate laundry facilities and workers, and reimburse the union for dues. The hospital had closed its laundry due to an expansion. The dissenting judge argues that the arbitrator overstepped authority by mandating the restoration of laundry facilities, which is an operational decision reserved for the hospital under their collective bargaining agreement. The dissent also questions the sufficiency of proof regarding the hospital's ability to comply with this specific directive.

Collective BargainingArbitration AwardSubcontractingLaundry ServicesManagement RightsOperational ControlDissenting OpinionUnion DuesEmployment RestorationHospital Operations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re New York Methodist Hospital

New York Methodist Hospital filed an order to show cause on June 1, 2009, seeking a judgment under Public Health Law § 2801-c to compel respondent E.H. to discharge himself from the hospital and accept placement in a skilled nursing facility. The hospital also sought to seal court records. Respondent, E.H., opposed the discharge. A bedside hearing was conducted on June 2, 2009, where testimony from medical staff and family members was heard. The court found that E.H., a 32-year-old bedridden male with complex medical needs, no longer required acute hospital care and was competent to make decisions, but unreasonably refused discharge plans. Despite the hospital's diligent search, the only facility willing and able to meet his needs was Daughters of Jacob Nursing Home (DOJ), which E.H. refused. The court granted the hospital's application for an injunction to compel E.H.'s discharge and to accept appropriate placement, and also granted the request to seal the court records to protect his medical privacy.

Patient DischargeInjunctionPublic Health LawMedical CapacityNursing Home PlacementHospital Discharge PlanningPatient RightsSealing Court RecordsMedicare/Medicaid ServicesSkilled Nursing Facility
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,106 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