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

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
Oct 17, 2012

Douyon v. NY Medical Health Care, P.C.

Plaintiff Gabrielle Douyon sued Seymour Schneider, N.Y. Medical Health Care, P.C., Faraidoon Daniel Golyan, M.D., and Kourosh Golyan, alleging unfair debt collection practices under the FDCPA and NY GBL § 349, along with intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. The lawsuit stemmed from attempts to collect an alleged medical debt following Douyon's emergency heart surgery performed by Dr. Golyan. Both parties sought summary judgment. The court granted Plaintiff partial summary judgment on FDCPA violations related to statutory disclosures and a threatening voicemail. However, many other FDCPA and NY GBL claims were denied due to factual disputes, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed for lack of medical evidence, with negligence claims partially allowed to proceed on the basis of fear for physical safety.

Fair Debt Collections Practices ActNew York General Business Law § 349Debt CollectionSummary JudgmentEmotional DistressNegligenceAgency RelationshipVicarious LiabilityFreelance Debt CollectorUnfair and Deceptive Practices
References
105
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. 342 Property LLC

Defendant Flintlock Construction Services, LLC, a general contractor, hired Site Safety for site safety management. An unnamed plaintiff suffered an accident, leading to claims against Site Safety, including under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, as well as contractual indemnification claims by Flintlock. Site Safety moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked control over the work site. The court found that Site Safety's role was primarily advisory, with limited authority to stop unsafe work, and thus it lacked the necessary control to incur liability under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence. Additionally, the court dismissed Flintlock's contractual indemnification claim, noting the absence of evidence of negligence by Site Safety, which was a prerequisite for indemnification under their contract. The motion court's decision granting summary judgment to Site Safety was affirmed on appeal.

Summary JudgmentSite Safety ManagementGeneral Contractor LiabilityContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnityLabor Law § 200Negligence ClaimsControl of Work SiteAppellate DecisionConstruction Accident
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 1998

Conway v. Beth Israel Medical Center

Timothy Conway, a construction worker, was injured while stepping on an A-Frame dolly in a storage room owned by Beth Israel Medical Center, causing him to fall. He appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which granted Beth Israel's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim due to insufficient evidence of Beth Israel's direction or control over Conway's work and because the danger was readily apparent. The Labor Law § 240 claim was also dismissed as the injury did not involve an elevation-related risk. Finally, the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was dismissed because the Industrial Code provisions relied upon (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 [e] [1] and [2]) were not applicable, as the storeroom was not a "passageway" or "working area" and the dolly was not a "scattered tool".

Personal injuryConstruction accidentLabor LawSummary judgmentWorkplace safetyA-Frame dollyElevation riskIndustrial Code violationRockland County Supreme CourtAppellate Division
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robinson v. East Medical Center

Plaintiff Douglas W. Robinson, a journeyman plumber, was injured on a construction site in 1998 while working for Burns Brothers Contractors. He sustained a back injury after using a six-foot ladder, which he knew was too short for the task, and standing on its top cap. He had previously requested an eight-foot ladder from his foreman but proceeded with the inadequate one. Robinson sued the owner of the medical complex (East Medical Center LP) and the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200 (1), and 241 (6). While the Supreme Court initially granted him partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), the Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the complaint. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that adequate safety devices (eight-foot ladders) were available at the job site, and the plaintiff's own negligent actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries.

Workers' CompensationConstruction AccidentLadder SafetyNegligenceProximate CauseLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryDuty to Provide Safety Devices
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2012

Williams v. Woodhull Medical & Mental Health Center

Valerie E. Williams filed an action against Woodhull Medical and Mental Health Center and other defendants, alleging discrimination and retaliation under federal and state laws, including Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986. Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom issued a Report and Recommendation, advising to grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiff Williams filed objections to the R&R, particularly contesting the recommendation on her Title VII retaliation claim. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, upon de novo review of the contested portions and clear error review of the uncontested, adopted the R&R in its entirety. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding Williams's claims, specifically noting a lack of causal connection for retaliation and insufficient evidence for a hostile work environment or due process violations.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VII RetaliationSummary JudgmentProcedural Due ProcessHostile Work EnvironmentMedical Negligence AllegationsPublic Health LawHospital EmploymentMagistrate Judge ReviewFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 56
References
80
Case No. ADJ9826556
Regular
Aug 05, 2016

Spencer Bachus vs. John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital, Hi-Desert Medical Center

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior decision finding applicant sustained a work-related viral meningitis injury. Defendants argued insufficient medical evidence linked the injury to employment and that the identified virus was not definitively work-acquired. The WCAB determined the existing medical evidence, particularly the Qualified Medical Evaluator's opinions, did not sufficiently establish a special risk of exposure due to the applicant's specific job duties. The case was returned for further development of the record, including a more detailed analysis of the applicant's job tasks and potential exposure risks, and potentially a new medical evaluation by an infectious disease specialist.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardViral meningitisIndustrial injuryDual employmentPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)Substantial medical evidenceCausationSpecial riskFurther proceedingsRescinded
References
0
Case No. 533487
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Glenn Hedges

The claimant, Glenn Hedges, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that rescinded his reduced earnings award for a specific period. Hedges, a fire safety director, sustained work-related injuries in 2014. After a period of medical evaluations, including reports from his treating neurologist, Ranga Krishna, and independent medical exams, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge classified him with a permanent partial disability. However, the WCLJ also denied continuing payments due to him working at full wages at one point. The Board modified the WCLJ's decision, awarding benefits for a shorter period and finding insufficient medical evidence to support an award for the period between August 22, 2018, and December 4, 2019, due to the claimant's failure to submit ongoing medical progress reports every 90 days. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating the requirement for regular medical evidence of continuing disability prior to official permanency classification.

Workers' CompensationReduced EarningsPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical EvidenceProgress ReportsMaximum Medical ImprovementIndependent Medical ExamDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewSedentary Work
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2003

Crosson v. Jamaica Hospital Medical Center

The plaintiff, an employee of Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, sustained a needle stick injury at work and subsequently alleged negligence by a phlebotomist while receiving a blood test at the Hospital's emergency room. After obtaining workers' compensation benefits for her injuries, the plaintiff initiated a medical malpractice action against the Hospital. The Hospital moved for summary judgment, asserting that Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) provided the exclusive remedy, a motion which the trial court granted. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Queens County, affirmed this decision, concluding that because the medical treatment was sought and arranged as a direct result of a work-related incident and was part of the Hospital's protocol for injured employees, the Workers' Compensation Law indeed constituted the plaintiff's sole available remedy.

Medical MalpracticeExclusive Remedy DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate AffirmationEmployer LiabilityEmergency Room NegligenceWork-Related InjuryWorkers' Compensation PreclusionJudicial ReviewHospital Protocol
References
2
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
Showing 1-10 of 14,458 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