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
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
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. Erie County Medical Center Corp.

Plaintiff, an HIV-positive, African-American social worker, sued her employer, Erie County Medical Center (ECMC), alleging disability and race discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and impermissible medical inquiries under federal and state laws. The claims stemmed from her supervisor's alleged mistreatment, including derogatory comments, denial of schedule changes, negative performance reviews, and inappropriate handling of medical information. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff failed to establish prima facie cases for her claims and that any adverse actions were not materially adverse or were for legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons. The court granted summary judgment for the defendant, dismissing all claims, finding insufficient evidence of actionable discrimination or a hostile work environment, and that other complaints either resulted in accommodation or were not materially adverse.

Disability discriminationRace discriminationHostile work environmentRetaliation claimsSummary judgmentAmericans with Disabilities ActTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawEmployment discriminationWorkplace harassment
References
48
Case No. ADJ3540065 (SAC 0361552)
Regular
Jan 23, 2017

BRADLEY MAXHAM vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendants' Petition for Removal, rescinding a prior WCJ order. The Board clarified that "information" provided to an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) includes treating physician records and relevant medical/non-medical records. A communication becomes "information" if it contains, references, or encloses such records. The case was returned for further proceedings to determine if applicant's letters to the AMEs improperly conveyed "information" without party agreement.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorInformationCommunicationLabor Code Section 4062.3Petition for RemovalEn Banc DecisionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPrejudiceIrreparable HarmSubstantial Evidence
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scalone v. Phelps Memorial Hospital Center

The plaintiff, Karen Scalone, as administratrix and individually, commenced a wrongful death action for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent after the death of her husband, Glen Scalone. Defendants sought further deposition regarding the plaintiff's medical history and death benefits received, arguing she waived privilege by commencing the action. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for a protective order. On appeal, the court held that commencing a wrongful death action does not automatically waive the plaintiff's physician-patient privilege regarding her own medical history. The court also clarified that while collateral source information for economic loss is generally admissible under CPLR 4545 (c), demands for life insurance and other specifically excluded death benefits are overbroad and erroneous. Additionally, the court found errors in compelling further bills of particulars from the plaintiff and denying a stay for non-party depositions before defendants' depositions were completed. The order was modified, denying disclosure of the plaintiff's medical records and excluded death benefits, and affirming the order as modified.

Wrongful DeathMedical MalpracticePhysician-Patient PrivilegeDiscovery DisputeCollateral Source RuleCPLR 4504CPLR 4545Informed ConsentDeposition PriorityProtective Order
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morser v. AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Plaintiff Roy Morser filed an age discrimination complaint against defendant AT & T Information Systems (ATT-IS) after being laid off during a company-wide reduction-in-force. The court initially granted summary judgment in favor of ATT-IS, prompting Morser to file a motion for reargument. Morser based his motion on recent Second Circuit employment discrimination decisions, Montana and Ramseur, arguing that the court had overlooked or misapplied summary judgment standards, particularly regarding intent and drawing inferences in favor of the non-moving party. The court granted the motion for reargument, but upon reconsideration, reaffirmed its original decision to grant summary judgment to ATT-IS. The court found that its initial ruling had properly applied summary judgment standards and distinguished the facts of Morser's case from the precedents cited, noting the context of a massive layoff and lack of specific evidence of discriminatory intent.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentReduction-in-Force (RIF)Rule 56 Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 3(j) Civil Rules S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y.Rule 59(e) Fed.R.Civ.P.Reargument MotionEmployment LawDisparate TreatmentSecond Circuit Precedent
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. Lutheran Medical Center

Felix Rivera sued Lutheran Medical Center (LMC) and Myles Davis for retaliatory and discriminatory discharge under New York State and City Human Rights Laws, alleging termination due to his association with a sister-in-law who previously sued LMC. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the claim under the NYSHRL, finding it does not support association discrimination, but denied dismissal for the NYCHRL claim, which explicitly allows such a cause of action. Separately, plaintiff moved to disqualify defendants' law firm, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLR, for improperly soliciting non-party witnesses. The court found that Morgan Lewis violated professional conduct rules by soliciting these witnesses to gain a tactical advantage, ordering their disqualification from representing four specific individuals and mandating disclosure of this to the witnesses. The overall decision represents a partial victory for both sides, with motions granted and denied in part.

Retaliatory DischargeDiscriminatory DischargeHuman Rights LawNYSHRLNYCHRLAssociation DiscriminationAttorney DisqualificationProfessional ResponsibilityConflict of InterestWitness Solicitation
References
9
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
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schonholz v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center

Plaintiff Gleniss Schonholz sued her former employer, Long Island Jewish Medical Center (LIJ), and several individual defendants under ERISA, seeking severance benefits. Schonholz alleged that LIJ wrongfully denied her severance benefits after requesting her resignation and promising benefits under a May 1991 plan, which she claims was revoked after her employment termination or not in writing. She also brought a promissory estoppel claim and claims against individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, seeking punitive damages. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the ERISA claim, finding plaintiff adequately alleged non-payment of benefits under a plan in effect at her termination or an invalid unwritten revocation. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the promissory estoppel claim with leave to amend, as plaintiff failed to allege actual reliance. Claims against individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and for punitive damages were dismissed with prejudice, as fiduciary duties run to the plan, not individuals, and punitive damages are generally unavailable under ERISA. Cross-motions for Rule 11 sanctions were also denied.

ERISAEmployee BenefitsSeverance PayMotion to DismissPromissory EstoppelFiduciary DutyPunitive DamagesRule 11 SanctionsEmployment LawWelfare Plan
References
39
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
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cramer v. Benedictine Hospital

William E. Cramer, a profoundly retarded 30-year-old, died after complications from a foreign body ingestion initially missed by defendant Benedictine Hospital's emergency room. Despite a radiologist's later suggestion of a non-obstructing foreign body, this information was not communicated. Plaintiff sued for medical malpractice, and a jury found Benedictine Hospital liable, awarding $1 million for pain and suffering. On appeal, the court affirmed the severance of a third-party action and the finding of liability. However, it deemed the damages excessive, reducing the award to $350,000 and ordering a new trial on damages unless the plaintiff accepts the reduction.

Medical MalpracticeEmergency Room NegligenceWrongful DeathSeverance of ActionsHearsay EvidenceCurative InstructionsJury Verdict ReviewDamages ReductionConscious Pain and SufferingEsophagram
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 11,183 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