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. 30 AD3d 876
Regular Panel Decision

Sandra M. v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center

The plaintiffs, Sandra M. and her husband, appealed a Supreme Court order granting summary judgment to St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center, dismissing their complaint. Sandra M. was allegedly sexually assaulted by a nursing assistant, Ricardo Cortez, supplied by United Staffing System, Inc., while on suicide watch at the Hospital. The plaintiffs sued the Hospital, United, and Cortez, alleging the Hospital was negligent in its suicide watch policies and its failure to independently evaluate staff provided by United. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order and affirmed the judgment dismissing the complaint against the Hospital. The court found the Hospital was not vicariously liable for Cortez's personal tortious acts and had no duty to independently screen employees supplied by United, as it had no prior knowledge of Cortez's propensity for misconduct.

Personal InjurySexual AssaultNegligenceHospital LiabilityVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorNegligent HiringSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSuicide Watch
References
20
Case No. LAO 0811779, LAO 0811780
Regular
Mar 06, 2008

ELENA BLANKEVOORT vs. HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, S&B SURGERY CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a trial judge's order disallowing a lien claim from S&B Surgery Center. The WCAB found that while S&B Surgery Center did have a required "surgical clinic" license, it failed to prove compliance with fictitious business name filing requirements. However, the WCAB returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings, allowing S&B Surgery Center an opportunity to correct this procedural defect to recover on its lien.

Fictitious business nameLien claimantSurgical clinic licenseBusiness and Professions Code section 17910Medical BoardDepartment of Health ServicesBurden of proofReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOutpatient setting
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Blasio v. United States

This action was brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act by Jean and Clifton DeBlasio against the United States for personal injuries sustained by Jean at the Gateway Sports Center. The plaintiffs alleged negligence due to protruding cement nodules on a sidewalk. The United States moved for summary judgment, asserting it could not be sued for the acts or omissions of its independent contractors. The court found that Shields and Dean Concessions, Inc., which operated the Sports Center, was an independent contractor and that the government lacked day-to-day supervisory control. Consequently, the Federal Tort Claims Act did not apply, and the motion for summary judgment was granted, finding the United States immune from suit.

Federal Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryNegligenceGovernment LiabilityConcessionaireNational Park ServiceControl Test
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beth Israel Medical Center v. 1199/S.E.I.U. United Healthcare Workers East

Beth Israel Medical Center (BIMC) petitioned to vacate an arbitration award concerning a labor dispute over wage differentials for registered nurses on flex-time schedules at its Kings Highway Division. Local 1199, the nurses' union, moved to confirm the award. The dispute arose when BIMC discontinued pro-rata wage differentials for day shift nurses, arguing a 2002 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) adopted a different plan. The arbitrator found for Local 1199, concluding the 2002 MOA did not alter the longstanding practice established in prior MOAs. BIMC argued the arbitrator exceeded his power and violated public policy; however, the court denied BIMC's petition and granted Local 1199's motion, affirming the arbitrator's decision that drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement.

Labor DisputeArbitration AwardWage DifferentialsCollective Bargaining AgreementFlex-Time ScheduleRegistered NursesNew YorkFederal CourtLMRAContract Interpretation
References
14
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
Mar 27, 1985

United States v. $100 in United States Currency

The United States initiated an in rem forfeiture action against $100,000 in U.S. currency, alleging it originated from illegal drug transactions. Claimants Jose Martinez-Torres and Nancy Medina asserted the funds were legitimate lottery winnings. The government sought summary judgment, arguing issue preclusion from a prior Nebbia bail hearing where Medina's lottery claim was found incredible. The Court granted partial summary judgment for the government, establishing probable cause for forfeiture. However, it denied the application of offensive collateral estoppel for full summary judgment, citing the distinct procedural environment and limited scope of the Nebbia hearing, and ruled that claimants are entitled to a plenary trial to prove the legitimate source of the funds.

ForfeitureDrug Trafficking ProceedsCollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionSummary JudgmentProbable CauseIn Rem ForfeitureBail HearingDue Process ConcernsPuerto Rican Lottery
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tuthill v. United States

Plaintiff Beverly Tuthill brought an action against the United States of America under the Federal Tort Claims Act after suffering injuries from a slip and fall on ice at the West Point Visitor's Center parking lot. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing they had no duty to protect the plaintiff from an open and obvious condition and lacked notice of the icy patch. The court denied the defendant's motion, citing genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the ice was indeed open and obvious and whether the defendant had constructive notice due to a potentially recurring ice problem in the area and the reasonableness of their inspection procedures. The case is to proceed to trial.

Federal Tort Claims ActSlip and FallSummary Judgment MotionNegligenceNew York LawOpen and Obvious HazardConstructive NoticeRecurring ProblemPremises LiabilityDuty of Care
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1996

Doe v. United States

Plaintiffs Jane and John Doe filed an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the United States, seeking damages for injuries Jane Doe sustained after being pricked by an HIV-infected patient's needle during a phlebotomy rotation at the Buffalo Veterans’ Administration Medical Center (VAMC). The plaintiffs allege gross negligence, breach of contract, and wrongful disclosure of confidential information, claiming emotional distress and loss of consortium. The government moved to dismiss, asserting that the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) provides the exclusive remedy, as a FECA claim for Ms. Doe's puncture wound had been accepted. The court denied the government's motion to dismiss but ordered a stay of proceedings, ruling that a substantial question exists regarding FECA's applicability and Ms. Doe's employee status, which must be definitively determined by the Secretary of Labor before the court can proceed with the FTCA claims.

Federal Tort Claims ActFederal Employees' Compensation ActSubject Matter JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityExclusive RemedyJudicial ReviewEmployee Status DisputeEmotional Distress ClaimLoss of ConsortiumMedical Negligence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Professional Career Center, Inc.

The Professional Career Center, Inc., offering real estate education, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed the Commissioner of Labor's assessment for additional unemployment insurance contributions. The assessment stemmed from a determination that the Center's teachers were employees, not independent contractors. Despite a consulting agreement, the court found substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship. This was based on the Center's control over hiring, payment, quality, student recruitment, tuition, scheduling, and curriculum adherence. The court concluded that these factors supported the finding, affirming the decision against Professional Career Center, Inc.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorProfessional EducationReal Estate LicensingLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewContributionsAudit
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Center for Constitutional Rights v. Department of Defense

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) initiated this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Defense (DOD), FBI, and CIA, seeking the release of images and videos of detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani from Guantánamo Bay. While the DOD and FBI acknowledged possessing such records but withheld them, the CIA issued a Glomar response, neither confirming nor denying their existence. The Court ultimately denied CCR's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the Government's cross-motion for summary judgment. The decision cited national security concerns, including potential harm to military personnel, extremist recruitment, compromised intelligence efforts, and adverse impacts on international relations, as valid reasons for withholding the records and for the CIA's Glomar response under FOIA Exemption 1.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)National SecurityClassified InformationGuantánamo BayDetaineeMohammed al-QahtaniSummary JudgmentFOIA ExemptionsGlomar ResponseIntelligence Collection
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 3,372 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