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
Jun 19, 2001

Carman v. Abter

A nurse employed by a medical center providing dialysis services alleged she contracted HIV after a needle stick injury sustained while drawing blood from a patient. She filed a medical malpractice action against the medical center, a salaried physician (Dr. Ma) employed by a nephrology group associated with the center, and an independent infectious disease consultant (Dr. Abter) used by the group. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint against all defendants, applying the Workers' Compensation Law's "fellow employee rule." On appeal, the judgment was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal for the medical center and Dr. Ma, concluding their services to the plaintiff were employment-related and not available to the general public. However, the complaint against Dr. Abter was reinstated, as the fellow-employee rule was found not to apply to him given his status as an independent consultant.

Medical malpracticeHIV exposureNeedle stick injuryWorkers' CompensationFellow employee ruleIndependent contractorPhysician negligenceEmployer liabilityAppellate reviewNew York law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eckman v. Cipolla

The plaintiff, Susan Eckman, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to defendants Anthony Cipolla, City of New York, New York City Fire Department, and Gerard J. Moriarty in a medical malpractice action. Eckman sought damages for the alleged wrongful death and pain and suffering of her late husband, James M. Manganaro III, who died by suicide, asserting that Cipolla failed to adequately monitor his psychotropic medication and Moriarty failed to perform a complete mental status assessment despite suicidal ideation. The defendants successfully demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, presenting expert affirmations, deposition testimony, and relevant medical records. The appellate court found that the plaintiff's expert affidavit was conclusory, speculative, and unsupported by the record, failing to raise a triable issue of fact. Consequently, the Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the defendants was affirmed.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathSuicideSummary JudgmentPsychotropic MedicationSocial Work MalpracticeExpert WitnessProximate CauseAppellate ReviewKings County
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 2005

Roberts v. El-Hajal

Plaintiff initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit, alleging that defendant Marlene El-Hajal negligently failed to diagnose a rare seizure disorder in her infant son. The complaint also sought to hold defendant E.J. Noble Hospital vicariously liable for El-Hajal's actions. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the hospital, concluding that El-Hajal was an independent contractor and the hospital lacked legal authority to supervise her medical practice. Plaintiff appealed this decision, additionally asserting that a hospital-employed nurse, Joy Markwick, was negligent for not recording and reporting telephone calls. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding no evidence of an employer-employee relationship between the hospital and El-Hajal during the relevant period, and dismissing the claims against the nurse due to insufficient evidence.

Medical MalpracticeVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentHospital LiabilityPhysician NegligenceNurse NegligenceSeizure DisorderEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate Review
References
13
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
Nov 02, 2001

Fonville v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which, upon reargument, adhered to a prior decision to dismiss a medical malpractice claim against the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC). The claim alleged that HHC's emergency medical services (EMS) improperly treated the decedent. The appellate court reversed the order, reinstating the claim concerning improper treatment by EMS workers. The court reasoned that although municipalities generally have immunity for governmental functions, once an affirmative action is voluntarily undertaken, it must be performed with due care. Consequently, the claim of improper treatment was reinstated, while allegations of nonfeasance remained dismissed.

Medical MalpracticeMunicipal ImmunitySpecial RelationshipVoluntary UndertakingDue CareCPLR 3211(a)(7)Motion to DismissClaim ReinstatementAppellate ReviewEMS Negligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2011

Swanson v. Raju

The plaintiffs, Michael Swanson and his wife, appealed decisions from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, regarding their medical malpractice claim against Dr. Raghava Raju. Swanson's severed tendon was surgically repaired by Raju, followed by immobilization and prescribed physical therapy. Plaintiffs alleged Raju's post-operative care, specifically prolonged immobilization and delayed therapy, constituted malpractice. The Supreme Court granted Raju's motion for summary judgment, which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court found that while plaintiffs presented expert testimony on departure from the standard of care, their expert's affirmations regarding proximate cause were conclusory and insufficient to rebut Raju's prima facie showing, thus failing to raise a triable issue of fact on causation.

Medical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseStandard of CarePost-operative CarePhysical TherapyTendon InjuryImmobilizationExpert Testimony
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 1997

Mushatt v. Cayuga Medical Center

Plaintiff appealed a judgment favoring defendants Cayuga Medical Center and the estate of her obstetrician, Frank Flacco, in a medical malpractice case. Plaintiff alleged that negligent care during her son Quandale's birth on August 15, 1990, led to his severe spastic cerebral palsy, mental retardation, and seizure disorder, attributing it to oxygen deprivation caused by a delayed Cesarean section. Defendants argued the oxygen deprivation occurred prior to delivery due to an acute event and chronic condition, and their care met standards. The jury sided with defendants. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the verdict's weight, the application of CPLR 4519 (Dead Man's Statute), the admission of testimony regarding her drug and alcohol use, and a missing witness charge. The Supreme Court Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, finding no errors warranting reversal.

Medical MalpracticeBirth InjuryCerebral PalsyOxygen DeprivationCesarean SectionExpert WitnessDead Man's StatuteCPLR 4519Appellate ReviewNegligence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rozewicz v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This opinion addresses a complex medical malpractice case involving the death of Mrs. Rosewicz, a Jehovah's Witness, who refused blood transfusions due to religious beliefs. Justice Lehner explores three categories of relevant legal precedents: government benefit denials for religious refusal of treatment, tortfeasor liability and mitigation of damages, and malpractice claims where a patient refused life-saving treatment on religious grounds. The court declines to charge the jury on mitigation of damages, deeming it inappropriate for this specific case. Instead, the judge rules that the jury will be instructed on the principles of assumption of risk and comparative fault, allowing for the apportionment of liability between the defendant's alleged negligence and the decedent's refusal of blood transfusions, consistent with decisions in Shorter v Drury and Corlett v Caserta.

Medical MalpracticeReligious FreedomBlood Transfusion RefusalJehovah's WitnessAssumption of RiskComparative FaultMitigation of DamagesWrongful DeathJury InstructionsNegligence
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldberg v. Edson

The plaintiffs appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, Rockland County. The first order, dated January 5, 2006, granted summary judgment to defendants Page Edson and the County of Rockland, dismissing the complaint against them regarding claims of legal and medical malpractice. The second order, dated January 23, 2006, granted summary judgment to defendant Elizabeth O’Connor, dismissing the complaint against her for legal malpractice. The appellate court affirmed both orders, finding that Edson and the County were immune from liability under Social Services Law § 419 for reporting suspected child abuse and removing a child, and that O’Connor was not negligent in her legal services.

Legal MalpracticeMedical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentChild Abuse ReportingSocial Services LawImmunityMandated ReportersAppellate ReviewGood FaithNegligence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2003

Marmol v. Green

The defendants Ernest Henry Kirchman and New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied their motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case. The defendants contended that the alleged malpractice occurred before the plaintiff's notice of claim and that the continuous treatment doctrine was inapplicable due to the time interval between visits. However, the plaintiff successfully raised a triable issue of fact concerning the interval between treatments, challenging the defendants' prima facie showing. Additionally, the court found an existing question regarding whether the parties considered the plaintiff's treatment complete. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order, noting that the plaintiff consulting other physicians for a workers' compensation claim, encouraged by one defendant, did not necessarily indicate a loss of trust in the defendants.

Medical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentContinuous Treatment DoctrineNotice of ClaimAppealAppellate DivisionQueens CountyHospital LiabilityPhysician LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Claim
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 8,778 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