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

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. 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. 2022 NY Slip Op 04811 [208 AD3d 492]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2022

Murphy v. 80 Pine, LLC

Daniel Murphy, an employee of Empire Office, Inc., sustained a knee injury after tripping over an electrical conduit ('stub up') at a worksite owned by 80 Pine, LLC, and managed by Rudin Management Co., Inc. He and his spouse filed a consolidated action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) against the owners, general contractor Structure Tone, Inc., and various electrical contractors including United States Information Systems, Inc. (Systems), USIS Electric, Inc. (Electric), and Bigman Brothers, Inc. (Bigman). The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Kings County, largely denied these motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, granting summary judgment to Systems on Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and certain Labor Law § 241(6) claims, and dismissing Bigman's cross-claims against Systems. It also granted summary judgment to Electric for the Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.30, and to the owners and Structure Tone for Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. However, it affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Electric regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, and for the owners and Structure Tone regarding specific Labor Law § 241(6) claims. The court also affirmed the denial of Electric's motion to dismiss Systems' cross-claim for contractual indemnification and the denial of the owners' and Structure Tone's motion for contractual indemnification against Bigman.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityCommon-Law NegligenceHazardous ConditionElectrical ConduitWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReviewIndemnification
References
22
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
Dec 09, 2014

CELLINO & BARNES, P.C. v. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. CASSAR

This appeal arises from a dispute between two law firms concerning attorney's fees. The plaintiff law firm initially represented a client in a personal injury action. The client subsequently discharged the plaintiff and retained the defendant law firms. The plaintiff then commenced an action against the defendants in Erie County, seeking attorney's fees on a quantum meruit basis and alleging frivolous and fraudulent conduct. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and to transfer venue. The court granted the dismissal of the second and third causes of action related to frivolous and fraudulent conduct but affirmed the denial of dismissal for the first cause of action and the denial of the motion to transfer venue.

Attorney's FeesCharging LienQuantum MeruitLegal MalpracticeFrivolous ConductFraudMotion to DismissVenue TransferCPLR 3211CPLR 510
References
13
Case No. 532023
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2022

Matter of Murphy v. New York State Cts.

Theresa Murphy filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits for her deceased husband, a court officer who participated in World Trade Center rescue operations and later died from metastatic squamous cell carcinoma. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claim, ruling that his death was not causally related to his employment, despite an initial finding by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge establishing a causal link under Workers' Compensation Law article 8-A. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, determining that the Board improperly rejected uncontroverted medical testimony from an independent medical examiner regarding the causal connection between the decedent's WTC exposure and his death. The court found the medical opinion sufficiently credible and not speculative, concluding that the exposure was a significant contributing factor. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the Appellate Division's decision.

World Trade CenterWorkers' CompensationCausationSquamous Cell CarcinomaDeath BenefitsIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewToxic ExposureLung CancerRemittal
References
15
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01728
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2019

O'Dwyer v. Law Offs. of Rex E. Zachofsky, PLLC

This case involves a fee-sharing dispute between Ginarte, O'Dwyer, Gonzalez, Gallardo & Winograd, L.L.P. (plaintiff) and The Law Offices of Rex E. Zachofsky, PLLC (defendant) concerning Workers' Compensation cases. The plaintiff moved to compel discovery, and the defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The Supreme Court initially denied both motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order by granting the plaintiff's discovery motion, allowing access to the Workers' Compensation Board's eCase system for referred cases. The court affirmed the denial of partial summary judgment for the defendants, noting that the breach of contract claim could not be resolved as a matter of law due to evidence of the plaintiff's firm's participation. An appeal and cross-appeal from a subsequent order denying reargument were dismissed as nonappealable.

Fee-sharing agreementBreach of contractRules of Professional ConductDiscovery disputeWorkers' Compensation casesAppellate reviewSummary judgmentAttorney responsibilityE-discoveryLegal ethics
References
3
Case No. ADJ7836773
Regular
Jul 09, 2012

Francisco Flores vs. Superior Carpet Works, Inc., Preferred Employers

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a sanctions order against the Law Offices of John A. Mendoza. The Appeals Board is also notifying the law firm of its intention to impose additional sanctions. This is due to alleged misrepresentations of fact in the petition for reconsideration and violations of Appeals Board rules regarding attaching previously filed documents. The law firm is granted twenty days to show cause why these additional sanctions should not be imposed.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSANCTIONSRECONSIDERATIONDEPOSITION ATTORNEY FEESLABOR CODE SECTION 5710LABOR CODE SECTION 5813APPEALS BOARD RULESDUE PROCESSMISREPRESENTATIONSFAILURE TO RESPOND
References
0
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
Showing 1-10 of 14,508 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