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

Christian v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

F. Christian sought accident disability retirement from the New York City Employees’ Retirement System for cataracts linked to a 1975 line-of-duty injury. Despite three ophthalmologists' reports indicating a causal link or aggravation of a pre-existing condition, the medical board denied the application twice, citing insufficient proof and without providing a basis for rejecting the medical evidence. The dissenting opinion by Justice Fein argued that the board's decision was arbitrary and capricious, advocating for a modification of the judgment to mandate reconsideration by the medical board. The dissent proposed that the medical board review all existing and new medical evidence and clearly state the reasons for its conclusions, emphasizing that the board members were not ophthalmologists and did not examine the petitioner.

Disability retirementCataractsLine of duty injuryMedical evidenceCausal relationshipAggravationPre-existing conditionMedical board reviewArbitrary and capriciousRemand

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Mittl v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case involves an appeal by Mittl, an ophthalmologist, challenging a Division of Human Rights (DHR) order that found him liable for pregnancy discrimination. Mittl had terminated his secretary after his wife suspected the secretary was carrying his child and created problems. The DHR initially ruled in favor of the complainant, awarding her back pay and damages. The Appellate Division annulled the DHR's determination, suggesting Mittl's actions were to save his marriage rather than discriminate. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision, stating it misapplied the substantial evidence standard of review. The Court found DHR's initial finding of discrimination was supported by substantial evidence and remitted the case for further proceedings regarding damages.

Pregnancy DiscriminationUnlawful TerminationHuman Rights LawExecutive Law § 296Substantial Evidence ReviewAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityEmployment LawDiscrimination ClaimCourt of Appeals Decision

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 27, 1983

Claim of Salvi v. Vanguard Plumbing & Heating Corp.

A 17-year-old claimant, injured in 1979 by a projectile striking his left eye, sustained a 100% vision loss without a contact lens, which he claims he cannot tolerate for more than a few hours. The employer conceded liability for an award if intolerance was proven but disputed the sufficiency of medical evidence. The claimant consistently reported discomfort and headaches to his ophthalmologist, Dr. Dennis Gormley, who, despite finding no physical evidence, confirmed the claimant's inability to wear the lens for extended periods. The court affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s decision, finding that the claimant's subjective complaints, supported by the course of medical treatment and reports, constituted substantial evidence of intolerance to the contact lens, thus upholding the award for 100% loss of vision.

Vision LossContact Lens IntoleranceSubjective ComplaintsMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewEye InjuryMinorsDouble AwardLabor Law

References

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

Showing 1-4 of 4 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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

Christian v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

Disability retirementCataractsLine of duty injuryMedical evidenceCausal relationshipAggravationPre-existing conditionMedical board reviewArbitrary and capriciousRemand

Mittl v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Claim of Salvi v. Vanguard Plumbing & Heating Corp.

Vision LossContact Lens IntoleranceSubjective ComplaintsMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewEye InjuryMinorsDouble AwardLabor Law

Faele v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.