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
Mar 13, 2006

Taylor v. New York University Medical Center

The court reversed an order and granted judgment to defendants in a sexual orientation discrimination case. Plaintiff's employment was terminated, which he alleged was discriminatory. Defendants, New York University Medical Center (NYUMC) and Ferrara, successfully argued that the termination was due to legitimate budgetary concerns and departmental reorganization, not discrimination. The court found that the plaintiff failed to rebut the defendants' nondiscriminatory reason or prove that discrimination was the real motive, noting that Ferrara was not the decision-maker in the termination. The case was dismissed, with the court also noting improper admission of evidence that would have warranted a new trial.

Sexual Orientation DiscriminationEmployment TerminationBudgetary ConcernsDepartmental ReorganizationPretextMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPunitive DamagesMental Anguish
References
14
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. 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

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

Palmer v. State University of New York Upstate Medical University

The claimant, an orthopedic hand surgeon, developed cervical radiculopathy and degenerative disc disease due to the physical strain of performing hand surgery and filed for workers' compensation benefits. His claim was controverted by the State University of New York Upstate Medical University and its carrier, as well as the Research Foundation of New York and its carrier. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that the claimant was a dual employee of both the University and the Foundation and that his condition constituted a causally related occupational disease. The University and its carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's findings, concluding there was substantial evidence to support both the dual employment status and the existence of a recognizable link between the claimant's condition and the distinctive features of his occupation.

Occupational DiseaseCervical RadiculopathyDegenerative Disc DiseaseDual EmploymentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsHand Surgery StrainMedical OpinionAppellate ReviewCausationEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corrigan v. New York University Medical Center

Plaintiffs Daniel P. Corrigan and James McQuade initiated an action against New York University Medical Center under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging they were denied employment as nursing attendants due to their age. Both plaintiffs were within the protected age group, 51 and 53 respectively. The Medical Center moved for summary judgment, presenting non-discriminatory reasons for its hiring decisions, including the plaintiffs' perceived unfavorable impressions during interviews, vague employment histories, and reported difficulties with co-workers speaking other languages. Furthermore, the defendant asserted that the temporary position for which the plaintiffs applied became unavailable due to the unexpected return of the incumbent employee, and subsequent openings were filled by individuals also within the protected age group. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Medical Center, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkFederal CourtDisability LeaveNursing AttendantPretextBurden of Proof
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Downstate Medical Center of State University of New York

The petitioner, an associate professor and director of a Joint Respiratory and Surgical Intensive Care Unit, was reassigned and later terminated following a leave of absence for a heart attack. He initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge his reassignment, the transfer of the ICU, and his termination from a tenured position. The Supreme Court's initial judgment was appealed. The appellate court modified the judgment by granting the petitioner's request for reinstatement to a comparable ICU director position. It also remitted the issue of reinstatement as a tenured associate professor to Downstate for review under its medical staff bylaws, displacing a prior referral to the UUP agreement. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claim concerning the ICU transfer and found the promotion issue time-barred under the UUP grievance procedure.

ReinstatementTenurePromotion DisputeCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewMedical Staff BylawsCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review ScopeHospital AdministrationAcademic Appointment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1998

Finnegan v. University of Rochester Medical Center

The plaintiff, whose name is not stated, was treated at the University of Rochester Medical Center’s Strong Memorial Hospital from February to June 1995, accruing over $50,000 in bills. Plaintiff claims the Hospital agreed to forbear collection until his Social Security disability appeal was resolved, but then allegedly reneged by sending the account to collection agencies Rochester Credit Center, Inc. (RCC) and CBC Companies, Inc. (CBA) and reporting negative credit information. Plaintiff sued the Hospital for violations of the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), New York General Business Law, breach of contract, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff also sued RCC and CBA for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), New York General Business Law Article 29-H, and negligence. The court granted the Hospital's motion to dismiss the FCBA claim, dismissing its state law claims without prejudice. The court denied RCC and CBA's motions to dismiss the FDCPA and negligence claims but granted their motions to dismiss the New York General Business Law Article 29-H claim.

Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA)Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)Motions to DismissSupplemental JurisdictionConsumer CreditDebt CollectionCredit ReportingNegligenceBreach of ContractNew York General Business Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2013

Dasrath v. Stony Brook University Medical Center

Plaintiff Anand Dasrath initiated an action against his former employer, Stony Brook University Medical Center, and three supervisors, alleging discrimination and retaliation based on his national origin and race in violation of Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. The alleged discriminatory acts included disparate treatment in work assignments, pay, and bonuses, a fabricated performance evaluation, and unlawful termination, alongside supervisors' derogatory comments and workplace sabotage. Defendants moved to dismiss several counts for failure to state a claim. The court partially granted and partially denied the motion, dismissing Title VII retaliation and hostile work environment claims due to lack of administrative exhaustion, state law claims against the Medical Center based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, and certain state law claims against individual supervisors. The plaintiff was granted limited leave to amend specific aiding and abetting claims against two supervisors.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIINational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentNew York State Human Rights LawMotion to DismissAdministrative ExhaustionEleventh Amendment Immunity
References
50
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 1,924 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