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

Fraser v. Brunswick Hospital Medical Center, Inc.

In this medical malpractice action, the defendant The Brunswick Hospital Medical Center, Inc. appealed an order that granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike its workers’ compensation coverage defense. Concurrently, the plaintiff cross-appealed the dismissal of the complaint against defendant S. Fong. The appellate court affirmed the decision to strike the workers’ compensation defense for The Brunswick Hospital Medical Center, Inc., citing its participation and lack of appeal in the prior Workers’ Compensation Board hearing. However, the dismissal of the complaint against S. Fong was reversed, as S. Fong was not present at the Board hearing, thus preclusion did not apply, and a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the injury was employment-related. The court also rejected S. Fong's argument regarding the absence of a doctor-patient relationship.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' CompensationAffirmative DefenseSpecial EmployeeCoemployeePreclusive EffectTriable Issue of FactDoctor-Patient RelationshipAppellate ReviewHospital Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 1976

Lichtenstein v. Montefiore Hospital & Medical Center

This appeal concerns a wrongful death action filed by Ruth Lichtenstein against Montefiore Hospital and Medical Center. The plaintiff alleged the hospital's negligence in allowing her husband, Gary Lichtenstein, to escape from an open psychiatric unit, leading to his suicide. The appellate court found no evidence of negligence on the hospital's part regarding the patient's escape, overturning the prior verdict which awarded $400,000 in damages. The court deemed the damages excessive and ordered a new trial, providing guidance on issues like the inference of suicide and proximate cause.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceHospital LiabilityPsychiatric PatientSuicideElopementOpen Psychiatric UnitProximate CauseDamagesExcessive Verdict
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Hospital Medical Center v. Microtech Contracting Corp.

This case addresses whether an employer's protection from third-party claims under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 is lost when its injured employees are undocumented aliens. Plaintiff New York Hospital Medical Center sued defendant Microtech Contracting for common-law and contractual contribution and indemnification, following a judgment paid to Microtech's injured undocumented employees, Luis and Gerardo Lema. The hospital argued that Microtech's alleged violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) in hiring the Lemas should preclude it from invoking Section 11's shield. Both the Supreme Court and Appellate Division dismissed the hospital's claims, affirming that employee immigration status does not negate an employer's statutory rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the illegality of the employment contract under IRCA does not override the employer's protections under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, particularly as the hospital did not pursue conflict preemption on appeal.

Workers' Compensation Law § 11Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)Undocumented AliensThird-Party ClaimsContribution and IndemnificationGrave InjuryPreemptionLabor LawEmployer LiabilityEmployee Rights
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rohlehr v. Brookdale University Hospital & Medical Center

Stanley Rohlehr sued Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center alleging four claims: termination in violation of New York Labor Law § 740 and the Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of an employee handbook, and violation of public policy. Rohlehr was terminated after filing complaints with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regarding union activities, followed by disciplinary notices for job performance issues. The NLRB dismissed his subsequent complaint, concluding termination was due to unsatisfactory performance. The Hospital moved for summary judgment. The court granted the Hospital's motion, dismissing all claims because the Labor Law § 740 claim did not involve public health or safety, the § 740 filing waived other contractual claims, the FLSA claim did not pertain to FLSA violations, and New York does not recognize a common law cause of action for abusive discharge.

WhistleblowerRetaliationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentLabor LawEmployee RightsEmployment ContractPublic PolicyNational Labor Relations BoardUnion Activities
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Brookdale University Hospital & Medical Center

Eulalia Perez was admitted to Brookdale University Hospital on November 16, 2010, and treated for various medical conditions before being discharged on December 7. She died two days later. Her family, Ivan and Irma Perez, sued Brookdale and other defendants, alleging a violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and state-law claims of wrongful death and negligence. The court granted Brookdale's motion for summary judgment on the EMTALA claim, determining that the hospital fulfilled its EMTALA duties once Mrs. Perez was stabilized, and any subsequent issues were outside the statute's scope. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, leading to the dismissal of all claims against all parties.

EMTALAEmergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor ActMedical MalpracticeNegligenceWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentSupplemental JurisdictionPatient DumpingHospital DischargeFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Polanco v. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center

Plaintiffs Pearl Polanco, Carol McCarthy, and Wilma Steel-Lopez, former employees of The Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, brought claims under the New York Labor Law (NYLL) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging they were not paid for work performed during lunch breaks and after shifts. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the state claims were preempted and federal claims precluded by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). The court, presided over by Senior District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, denied the defendant's motion, concluding that the plaintiffs' NYLL and FLSA claims assert independent statutory rights that are neither preempted nor precluded by the LMRA.

Wage DisputesOvertime CompensationFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawLabor Management Relations ActPreemption DoctrineClaim PreclusionMotion to DismissEmployee RightsStatutory Rights
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duva v. Flushing Hospital & Medical Center

Plaintiff Richard Duva, an electrician, sustained injuries after slipping on debris in a dark stairwell while working at Flushing Hospital & Medical Center, where G. C. Castagna & Sons, Inc. was the general contractor. Duva sued the owner and general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law § 200(1) and § 241(6). The defendants moved for the court to charge comparative negligence against the plaintiff. The court reviewed conflicting appellate decisions concerning the application of comparative and contributory negligence, particularly regarding the 'absolute liability' debate under Labor Law § 241(6). Following precedent from the Appellate Division, Second Department, the court determined that comparative negligence is applicable to both Labor Law § 200(1) and § 241(6).

Comparative NegligenceContributory NegligenceLabor LawSection 200Section 241Nondelegable DutyAbsolute LiabilityVicarious LiabilityConstruction SafetyWorkplace Injury
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rechenberger v. Nassau County Medical Center

Edward Rechenberger suffered hip fractures and underwent two operations at Nassau County Medical Center in May 1982. Following a re-injury and later diagnosis, he learned the surgical hardware was improperly implanted, leading to further operations. Mr. Rechenberger sought leave to serve a late notice of claim against the medical center. The Supreme Court initially denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the hospital had actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim within the statutory 90-day period through its own medical records. The court concluded that the delay in serving the notice of claim was not substantially prejudicial to the hospital, and thus, granted the petitioners leave to serve the late notice of claim.

Medical MalpracticeLate Notice of ClaimNassau CountyHip FractureSurgical ErrorContinuous Treatment DoctrineActual NoticePrejudiceAppellate ReviewMunicipal Corporation
References
11
Case No. 07-CV-6149L
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2010

Johnson v. THE UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER

Plaintiffs Keith Johnson, M.D., and Laura Schmidt, R.N., filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act against the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital. They alleged defendants defrauded the government by submitting false claims for anesthesiology services under Medicare/Medicaid, claiming physician supervision when it was absent. Johnson also alleged retaliatory discharge for reporting violations, and Schmidt claimed retaliation for refusing to alter medical records. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing failure to plead fraud with particularity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Johnson cross-moved to amend the complaint to add claims of libel per se and prima facie tort against Dr. Lustik. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege that any fraudulent bills were actually presented to Medicare/Medicaid. The retaliation claims were also dismissed because the complaints were not made in furtherance of a qui tam action. Johnson's motion to amend was denied as frivolous and in bad faith. Defendants' request for sanctions was denied without prejudice.

False Claims ActQui TamMedicare FraudMedicaid FraudRetaliatory DischargePleading StandardsRule 9(b)Motion to DismissLeave to AmendLibel
References
28
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
Showing 1-10 of 10,019 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