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. 533089
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2021

Matter of Barden v. General Physicians PC

Claimant, a patient services representative, sought to amend her workers' compensation claim to include left shoulder aggravation after a work-related injury to her right shoulder. The Workers' Compensation Board disallowed this request, finding that claimant failed to provide sufficient credible medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between her employment and the left shoulder condition. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The court noted that the claimant's treating physician opined the left shoulder pathology was largely preexisting and unrelated to the work injury, and other medical opinions either lacked sufficient weight or were based on inaccurate information, providing no basis to disturb the Board's finding.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryCausationMedical EvidencePreexisting ConditionAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionClaim AmendmentPatient Services Representative
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LoDico v. Caputi

This case involves a medical malpractice claim where the plaintiff, Mr. LoDico, alleged negligence against Dr. Caputi for misdiagnosing a brainstem tumor during an examination conducted at the request of the State Insurance Fund. Dr. Caputi moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the absence of a physician-patient relationship in such an examination. While the Special Term denied this motion, the appellate court, in a dissenting opinion by J. Green, ultimately reversed the Special Term's order and granted Dr. Caputi's motion to dismiss the complaint. The central issue revolved around the legal definition and existence of a physician-patient relationship when a physician examines an individual on behalf of an insurance carrier.

medical malpracticephysician-patient relationshipinsurance examinationmisdiagnosismotion to dismissappellate reversalduty of caresummary judgmentnegligenceworkers' compensation carrier
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lodico v. Cohn

This case involves a medical malpractice action where the defendant, Dr. Robert A. Caputi, moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing a lack of physician-patient relationship with the plaintiff, Ronald Lodico. Lodico underwent an examination by Dr. Caputi in September 1983, requested by the State Insurance Fund for a workers' compensation claim. The plaintiff alleged that Dr. Caputi negligently failed to diagnose a brain stem tumor during this examination. Citing Twitchell v MacKay, the court determined that even a limited physician-patient relationship existed, imposing a duty on the examining physician to properly perform the examination. Therefore, the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiffs' allegations sufficient to state a cause of action.

Medical MalpracticePhysician-Patient RelationshipWorkers' CompensationMotion to DismissFailure to DiagnoseBrain Stem TumorDuty of CareExamining PhysicianNegligenceSummary Judgment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2000

McNulty v. City of New York

This dissenting opinion addresses the legal duty of physicians and hospitals to non-patients in a medical malpractice case. Plaintiff Mary Ann McNulty sued several doctors and hospitals after contracting meningococcal meningitis from her friend, Robin Reda, following alleged misinformation and failure to warn about prophylactic treatment. The dissent argues that expanding a physician's duty beyond the established physician-patient relationship to a non-patient friend creates an unmanageable and potentially limitless scope of liability, citing precedent that narrowly defines such duties even for immediate family members. It contends that the hospitals' voluntary undertaking to contact at-risk individuals did not create a legal duty of care to Ms. McNulty. Therefore, the dissenting judge would dismiss all claims against the physicians and hospitals involved.

Medical MalpracticeMedical NegligenceDuty of CarePhysician-Patient RelationshipContagious DiseaseMeningitisSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewThird-Party LiabilityForeseeability
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aufrichtig v. Lowell

The case concerns a lawsuit filed by Burton and Janette Aufrichtig against Dr. Bruce K. Lowell, Janette's treating physician. The Aufrichtigs alleged that Dr. Lowell provided false sworn testimony and an affidavit to Hartford Insurance Company regarding Janette's medical condition and need for skilled nursing care during a prior federal lawsuit for insurance benefits. This false information allegedly compelled the Aufrichtigs to settle their claim for fewer benefits. The Court of Appeals considered whether a treating physician has a duty to provide truthful information to a patient's insurer, particularly under oath. The Court held that such a duty exists as part of the physician-patient confidential relationship and reversed the lower court's grant of summary judgment to Dr. Lowell, finding that factual issues remained.

physician-patient relationshipduty of caretruthful testimonysummary judgmentinsurance benefitsmedical malpracticefiduciary dutyCPLREducation Lawmultiple sclerosis
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ferguson v. Wolkin

Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident, leading to a disability leave from her employment at Harrison Radiator. Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement and likely an insurance carrier's request, she was examined by the defendant, an Impartial Medical Opinion Examiner. The defendant reported that the plaintiff was fit to return to work. Plaintiff returned to work and subsequently suffered a back injury, alleging it was caused by her premature return due to the defendant's negligent report, which she claimed failed to adequately consider a myelogram. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of physician-patient duty beyond the examination itself, or immunity. The court granted the defendant's motion, concluding that no physician-patient relationship extended to the reporting of medical findings in this context.

Medical MalpracticePhysician-Patient RelationshipImpartial Medical ExaminerSummary JudgmentDuty of CareDisability ClaimWorkers' CompensationAutomobile AccidentBack InjuryMyelogram
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ellis v. Peter

This case addresses whether a physician owes a duty of care which extends to a patient's spouse who contracts tuberculosis due to the physician's alleged negligent failure to properly diagnose the disease in the patient. The plaintiffs, John and Joan Ellis, sued Dr. Sebastian A. Peter for medical malpractice. The wife, Joan Ellis, alleged negligence for failure to warn her about her husband's infectious condition. The court held that New York State law does not impose a statutory or common-law duty upon a physician for the benefit of those who may contract such a disease from the patient, as a physician's duty is ordinarily owed to the patient, not the community at large. Therefore, the order was reversed, the plaintiffs' motion to strike defenses was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the wife's second and fourth causes of action was granted.

medical malpracticephysician's duty of carenegligencecommunicable diseasetuberculosisforeseeabilitystatutory dutycommon lawpatient spousezone of risk
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tesillo v. Emergency Physician Associates, Inc.

Manuel Tesillo sued Emergency Physician Associates, Inc. (EPA) for medical malpractice, alleging vicarious liability for the negligence of Dr. William C. Shepherd, an emergency physician at Schuyler Hospital. EPA moved for summary judgment, arguing Dr. Shepherd was an independent contractor. The court found material issues of fact regarding the extent of EPA's control over Dr. Shepherd and its managerial obligations to the Emergency Department, which could establish an employer-employee relationship despite contractual terms. Consequently, the court denied EPA's motion for summary judgment, indicating that the determination of Dr. Shepherd's employment status requires further discovery and possibly a trial.

Medical MalpracticeVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorAgency by EstoppelSummary JudgmentPhysician NegligenceEmergency DepartmentControl TestMaterial Issues of Fact
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re North Shore Hematology-Oncology Associates, P.C., Debtor

This memorandum opinion addresses whether the Debtor, a physician-owned healthcare practice, is a health care business under the Bankruptcy Code and if a patient care ombudsman should be appointed. The Court finds the Debtor is a healthcare business but waives the appointment of an ombudsman at this time. The decision is based on several factors, including the Debtor's lack of inpatient services, low patient complaint rate, existing compliance programs (HIPAA, CLIA), ability to maintain high-quality care, and monitoring by the New York State Department of Health. The Court notes the potential for revisiting the appointment if circumstances change.

BankruptcyPatient Care OmbudsmanHealthcare BusinessChapter 11Debtor in PossessionEastern District of New YorkSection 333(a)(1)Bankruptcy CodePatient ProtectionMedical Practice
References
16
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 2,990 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