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

New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. v. Jones

This case addresses a motion by the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York to dismiss a third-party complaint filed by Defendant Jones. Jones was initially sued by the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (H&H) for $2,370, representing a six-day hospital stay. Jones then sought indemnification from the Commissioner, asserting eligibility for Medicaid and that an H&H-submitted claim for benefits was not honored. The Commissioner sought dismissal on grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, was barred by the Statute of Limitations, and constituted an impermissible collateral attack. The court denied the motion, finding it unclear that the city agency played no role in benefit administration, citing that the Statute of Limitations for indemnification runs from when the party is compelled to pay, and noting the lack of evidence that Jones received notice of a claim denial.

MedicaidIndemnificationThird-Party ActionMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsSocial ServicesHospital BillingGovernment LiabilityHealthcare CostsCity Agency
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. Lead Industries Ass'n

This appellate decision addresses an action brought by the City of New York, the New York City Housing Authority, and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation against lead paint manufacturers and their trade association. The plaintiffs seek indemnity and restitution for costs incurred in abating lead paint hazards in their buildings. The court reverses lower court orders that had dismissed these indemnity and restitution claims, clarifying that such causes of action are independent of underlying time-barred tort claims and accrue when loss is suffered by the party seeking indemnity. The opinion emphasizes that these equitable remedies aim to prevent unjust enrichment and ensure that the party primarily responsible for the hazard bears the financial burden. Additionally, the court addresses jurisdictional challenges against newly added defendants, ruling that further discovery is warranted.

Lead Paint LitigationIndemnity ClaimsRestitution ClaimsStatute of LimitationsProducts LiabilityFraud ClaimsUnjust EnrichmentPublic Health SafetyEnvironmental HazardsSuccessor Liability
References
22
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

John v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

The New York State Division of Human Rights' determination, finding no probable cause for disability discrimination by the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation against the petitioner, was unanimously confirmed. The petitioner's employment termination two days after starting was found to be due to her failure to inform the Workers’ Compensation Division of her return to work, not discrimination, as she was reinstated upon providing documentation. The court denied the petition and dismissed the CPLR article 78 proceeding, finding no merit to the petitioner's claim of a one-sided investigation.

Human RightsDisability DiscriminationEmployment TerminationWorkers' CompensationCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewProbable CauseReinstatementNew York State Division of Human RightsNew York City Health and Hospitals Corporation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Feldman v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case concerns an action by Robert Feldman, as assignee, to recover on a third-party judgment against the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The original personal injury action involved Alexander Z. Dubicki and Anne Dubicki as plaintiffs, and the Marescos and Dr. Joseph Dashefsky as defendants, with Hospitals Corporation as a third-party defendant. The jury apportioned liability, with Hospitals Corporation found 54% negligent but not directly liable to the Dubickis; its liability was conditional on the Marescos paying the Dubickis an amount exceeding their 10% share. To overcome this impasse, Feldman loaned funds to the Marescos, who then paid the Dubickis, thereby satisfying the judgment against them. The Marescos then assigned their right of contribution from Hospitals Corporation to Feldman. The court found this arrangement valid and proper, rejecting the defendant's claim of a collusive scheme to circumvent the condition precedent established in Klinger v Dudley. The court granted Feldman's cross-motion for summary judgment, entitling him to recover from the Hospitals Corporation.

Third-party judgmentContributionApportionment of damagesSummary judgmentCollusion defenseCondition precedentAssignment of judgmentBona fide loanPublic policyUnjust enrichment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cromwell v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Jerome Cromwell sued the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and its CEO, Alan D. Aviles, alleging unpaid wages for work performed before and after scheduled shifts and during breaks. Cromwell sought overtime and gap-time pay under both the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Defendants moved to dismiss the NYLL claims, asserting that HHC is a political subdivision of New York State and therefore exempt from NYLL wage provisions. The Court conducted a particularized inquiry into HHC's nature, considering its essential public function, substantial public funding, and classification as a public employer under other state and federal laws. Ultimately, the Court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that HHC is a political subdivision for NYLL purposes and dismissing Cromwell's NYLL claims with prejudice.

Wage disputeOvertime payGap-time payFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawPolitical subdivisionPublic employerMotion to dismissGovernmental immunityPublic benefit corporation
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaur v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Harbans Kaur alleged hostile work environment and wrongful termination due to national origin discrimination and retaliation by New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. It found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for disparate treatment or retaliation, citing a lack of causal connection and insufficient evidence against defendant's non-discriminatory reasons. The court also concluded that the hostile work environment claim lacked sufficiently severe or pervasive incidents, and co-worker conduct could not be imputed to the employer. State and city law claims were dismissed under similar reasoning, even with the city law's broader interpretation.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawFederal Courts
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1999

Faele v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Rosemary Faele, a nurse at Coney Island Hospital, sustained an eye irritation and received brief examinations from defendants Dr. Barry Eppinger and Dr. An-nan Das in the hospital's emergency room. Her condition worsened, and she was later diagnosed with a severe eye infection by a private ophthalmologist. Though compensated via Workers' Compensation, Faele and her husband initiated a medical malpractice action against the doctors and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint by granting summary judgment to the defendants. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that a sufficient nexus existed between Faele's employment and the alleged malpractice, thereby precluding a common-law malpractice claim and limiting her recourse to Workers' Compensation.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' Compensation PreclusionSummary Judgment AffirmationEmployment-Related InjuryHospital LiabilityEmergency Medical TreatmentAppellate Division DecisionPersonal InjuryDoctor-Patient NexusConey Island Hospital
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Figueroa v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Nohemi Figueroa, a former employee of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC), sued for employment discrimination based on national origin and gender under federal, state, and city human rights laws. HHC moved for summary judgment, asserting that Figueroa did not suffer adverse employment action, that the alleged actions did not infer discrimination, and that HHC had legitimate business reasons. The court ruled that the denial of vacation choice was not a materially adverse employment action. While assuming the initial denial of sick leave could be considered an adverse action, the court found insufficient evidence to infer sex or national origin discrimination. Ultimately, the court concluded that HHC presented legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationGender DiscriminationTitle VIINew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseAdverse Employment ActionVacation Leave
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Lillian Brown, an assistant head nurse, sustained a needle stick injury from an angiocath stylet in the crib of an HIV-positive infant, Baby C., at Queens General Hospital in December 1990. She subsequently developed 'AIDS phobia' and sued the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and two doctors for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendants sought to compel HIV testing and moved for summary judgment, arguing her fear was unreasonable given prior negative tests and lack of definitive exposure. The appellate court modified a lower court order, ruling that while actual exposure (scientifically accepted transmission method and HIV-positive source) is required for 'AIDS phobia' claims, triable issues of fact existed. However, the court limited the plaintiff's recoverable damages for emotional distress to the initial six-month period following exposure, unless she could provide evidence of a positive HIV-antibody test, as her fear would be deemed unreasonable thereafter.

AIDS phobianegligent infliction of emotional distressHIV exposuremedical malpracticesummary judgmentemotional damagesreasonable fearmitigation of damagesHIV-antibody testactual exposure
References
41
Showing 1-10 of 17,820 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