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
Oct 19, 2000

Rosenberg v. Eternal Memorials, Inc.

The case involves two consolidated actions for personal injuries and wrongful death. Stuart Rosenberg, executor of the estate of Barry Rosenberg, and Edward Wheat, sustained injuries when an extendable boom they were operating contacted a power line on Eternal Memorials, Inc.'s property. The Supreme Court granted Eternal Memorials, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaints against it. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that the landowner, Eternal Memorials, Inc., was not liable as it did not supervise the work nor had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

Personal injurywrongful deathelectrocutionextendable boompower linelandowner dutysafe place to workLabor Law § 200summary judgmentappellate review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2000

Ramnarine v. Memorial Center for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jagdeo Ramnarine, an employee of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, suffered a laceration at the Memorial Center for Cancer and Allied Diseases. He subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit. The defendant, Memorial Center, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as both the Center and the Hospital operate as a single integrated employer despite their separate legal entities. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant. The court found substantial evidence supporting the integrated employer argument, thereby limiting the plaintiff's remedy to workers' compensation benefits and dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against the defendant.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityIntegrated Employer DoctrineSummary Judgment ReversalNegligence ClaimCross Claims DismissedCorporate Alter EgoCommon ControlBronx CountyAppellate DivisionLabor Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2006

Ochei v. Coler/Goldwater Memorial Hospital

Plaintiff Joan Ochei brought an action against Coler/Goldwater Memorial Hospital and New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, alleging discrimination based on race and national origin, a hostile work environment, and retaliation, leading to constructive discharge. Ochei, a Licensed Practical Nurse, claimed inadequate training, negative evaluations, and transfer were discriminatory. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Ochei failed to establish a prima facie case. The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, finding no evidence to support Ochei's claims of discrimination, a hostile work environment, or constructive discharge. Additionally, Coler/Goldwater Memorial Hospital was deemed not a suable entity.

DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Law
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Casimiro v. Thayer

This case concerns a motion by the plaintiff, representing the estate of Rosemarie Casimiro, to compel defendant Chris S. Thayer to produce medical records from CrouseIrving Memorial Hospital following a fatal motor vehicle collision. Thayer, an employee of Oswego Plaza Liquors, claims retrograde amnesia as a result of the accident. Defendants cross-moved for a protective order, citing physician-patient privilege. The court, distinguishing the case from Dillenbeck v Hess, ruled that Thayer's claim of retrograde amnesia to explain his memory loss effectively constitutes using his memory loss to excuse his conduct, thereby waiving the privilege. The court emphasized the strong public policy against driving under the influence and the necessity of balancing defendant's rights with the victim's family's right to justice. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for disclosure of medical records pertaining to blood alcohol content and retrograde amnesia, while denying without prejudice the request for no-fault insurance and workers' compensation records.

Physician-Patient PrivilegeRetrograde AmnesiaBlood Alcohol TestMedical Records DiscoveryWaiver of PrivilegeMotor Vehicle AccidentDiscovery MotionPersonal Injury LawNew York State LawEvidentiary Privilege
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Franzon v. Massena Memorial Hospital

This civil rights action was brought by Dr. Olof Franzon and his professional corporation against Massena Memorial Hospital and numerous individuals, alleging retaliatory harassment under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Plaintiffs claimed violations of First Amendment free speech and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights, alongside state law claims like defamation. The core of the complaint stemmed from a conspiracy to silence Dr. Franzon after he advocated for nurse-midwifery and critiqued hospital practices. Defendants sought dismissal based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, prematurity, and moved for a more definite statement. The court denied dismissal for exhaustion and prematurity, affirming federal jurisdiction for the Section 1983 claims. It partially granted the motion for a more definite statement, dismissing claims against Kenneth Maxik and Tae-Sik Choi, M.D. due to vague allegations, and rejected the equal protection claim against all defendants. However, the First Amendment free speech claim against the remaining defendants was permitted to proceed.

Civil RightsRetaliatory HarassmentFirst AmendmentFree SpeechEqual ProtectionHospital PrivilegesPhysician RightsMedical StaffMotion to DismissFederal Jurisdiction
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Imbierowicz v. A.O. Fox Memorial Hospital

The case involves an appeal from a judgment where the plaintiff, decedent's wife, brought a medical malpractice action after her husband died of cardiac arrest due to an undiagnosed aortic dissection. A jury initially found four defendants negligent: A.O. Fox Memorial Hospital, Benjamin Friedell, Capital Cardiology Associates, and John Gould, awarding significant damages. On appeal, the court found insufficient evidence to support Fox's separate liability. Furthermore, the court determined that the jury charge regarding the Noseworthy rule was improper, potentially leading the jury to apply a lesser burden of proof on negligence. The court also ruled that the plaintiff's economic expert's testimony regarding lost earnings was speculative, lacking proper foundation. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, the motion to set aside the verdict for Fox's separate liability was granted, and the matter was remitted for a new trial on liability for Friedell, Gould, and Capital Cardiology Associates, as well as on damages.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathAortic DissectionFailure to DiagnoseNegligenceProximate CauseJury Charge ErrorNoseworthy RuleDamages CalculationPecuniary Loss
References
26
Case No. Index No. 161136/17 Appeal No. 15141 Case No. 2021-02236
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2022

Quiroz v. Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jose Alfonso Perez Quiroz, a construction worker, sustained injuries after falling from an unstable scaffold at a site managed by Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases and general contractor Turner Construction Company. He initiated legal action under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and dismissed his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting Quiroz's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), finding the unsecured scaffold to be a proximate cause of his fall. The appellate court subsequently dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim as academic.

Construction AccidentScaffold FallLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment AppealPlaintiff LiabilityDefendant LiabilityProximate CausationRecalcitrant Worker Defense
References
17
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06210
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2023

Tisselin v. Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Plaintiff Frisner Tisselin, a project manager, sustained injuries at a construction site when a roof access ladder detached from a personnel hoist and struck him. The ladder's attachment failed due to a broken weld on a washer. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and largely granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order, granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, finding the hoist inadequate for its safety purpose and the ladder an essential component. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Memorial Hospital and Turner Construction due to a lack of actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of Safeway Atlantic, LLC's motion to dismiss the common-law negligence claim, citing an issue of fact regarding negligent installation and inspection of the hoists.

Construction site injuryPersonnel hoist accidentLadder detachmentLabor Law § 240 (1) liabilityLabor Law § 200 dismissalCommon-law negligenceSummary judgmentAppellate DivisionSafety device inadequacyElevation-related hazard
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 1993

Patterson v. Army

Plaintiffs Patricia M. Patterson and Dr. Hoi Yat Kam, employees of Booth Memorial Medical Center, brought an action against Booth and others after allegedly being exposed to Formalin. Booth moved for summary judgment, arguing the exclusivity of Workers' Compensation Law. The IAS Court initially denied Booth's motion, citing factual disputes regarding coverage and Booth's knowledge of Formalin dangers. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, granting Booth's motion and dismissing the complaint against it. The court found that a Workers' Compensation policy was in place, covering the loss period and paying Patterson's medical bills, thus making Workers' Compensation the exclusive remedy for injuries arising from employment. The plaintiffs' argument of intentional injury by Booth was rejected, as the tort was not deemed intentional under the legal standard requiring a deliberate act to injure a particular employee.

Workers CompensationExclusivity ClauseSummary JudgmentFormalin ExposureOccupational DiseaseIntentional TortAppellate ReversalEmployer LiabilityPathologyNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 1981

Brown v. McGraw-Edison Co.

Avie Brown suffered injuries while employed at Memorial Hospital and received workers' compensation. She sued McGraw-Edison Company and American Laundry Machinery, Inc., who subsequently initiated a third-party action against Memorial Hospital for indemnification or contribution. Memorial Hospital failed to timely answer the third-party complaint, resulting in a default judgment granted against them by Special Term. Memorial Hospital appealed this order, arguing that Special Term had abused its discretion in granting the default judgment and refusing to vacate it. The appellate court affirmed the order and judgment, citing precedent that "law office failure" is not an acceptable excuse to vacate a default judgment, whether for a plaintiff or a defendant. The court found Memorial's excuses amounted to law office failure and that Special Term did not abuse its discretion.

Law office failureDefault judgmentAppeal affirmedAppellate reviewDiscretionary rulingWorkers' compensation benefitsThird-party liabilityIndemnification claimContribution claimProcedural default
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,310 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