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

Martin v. Baldwin Union Free School District

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, concerning an action for personal injuries. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order. It granted the motion of Baldwin Union Free School District to compel the plaintiff, William J. Martin, to undergo an oncological examination. It also granted Joseph Zarza, Inc.'s cross-motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the complaint against it. The court found that William J. Martin was a special employee of Joseph Zarza, Inc., and having received Workers' Compensation benefits from his general employer, Ken-L Metal and Panel Systems, Inc., he was barred from suing Zarza, Inc. The oncological examination was deemed necessary because Martin's claim for future damages placed his life expectancy, affected by multiple myeloma, in issue.

Special Employee DoctrineWorkers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment MotionOncological ExaminationLife ExpectancyMultiple MyelomaControl Test for EmploymentPersonal Injury DamagesAppellate ReviewEmployer Immunity
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re North Shore Hematology-Oncology Associates, P.C., Debtor

This memorandum opinion addresses whether the Debtor, a physician-owned healthcare practice, is a health care business under the Bankruptcy Code and if a patient care ombudsman should be appointed. The Court finds the Debtor is a healthcare business but waives the appointment of an ombudsman at this time. The decision is based on several factors, including the Debtor's lack of inpatient services, low patient complaint rate, existing compliance programs (HIPAA, CLIA), ability to maintain high-quality care, and monitoring by the New York State Department of Health. The Court notes the potential for revisiting the appointment if circumstances change.

BankruptcyPatient Care OmbudsmanHealthcare BusinessChapter 11Debtor in PossessionEastern District of New YorkSection 333(a)(1)Bankruptcy CodePatient ProtectionMedical Practice
References
16
Case No. ADJ12906916
Regular
Feb 25, 2025

Celia Clara Bautista vs. Cal Central Harvesting, Inc.

Defendant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision finding industrial injury to the applicant in the form of uterine cancer and to the right foot. Defendant contended the WCJ erred by relying on Dr. Lonky's opinions, arguing his specialty was not relevant and he did not adequately consider exposure and latency periods. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the medical record needed further development from additional specialists (oncology, gastroenterology, orthopedics) and supplemental reporting or testimony from Dr. Lonky, thus deferring the issues of industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjuryUterine CancerRight Foot InjuryPulmonologyToxicologyLatency PeriodPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidencePetition for Reconsideration
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2011

Tptcc Ny, Inc. v. Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.

Plaintiffs TPTCC NY, Inc., The Proton Institute of New York, LLC, and N.Y. Medscan LLC sued defendants Norton Travis, Radiation Therapy Services Inc. (RTSI), Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., Cicero Consulting Associates VCC, Inc., New York Proton Management LLC (NYPC), Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., and 21st Century Oncology, LLC. Plaintiffs alleged federal antitrust, federal copyright, and various New York state law claims, contending a conspiracy to exclude them from the New York City market for Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) services and misappropriation of their business plan. The court dismissed the antitrust claims, applying the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and finding a lack of antitrust injury. Copyright claims were dismissed because the business plan lacked creativity for copyright protection and was jointly authored. State law claims, including breach of joint venture, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, were also dismissed due to various legal deficiencies, such as the absence of a joint venture, the public disclosure of alleged trade secrets, and the lack of a fiduciary relationship. The court reaffirmed its order granting defendants' motions and dismissed the Amended Complaint in its entirety with prejudice, directing entry of final judgment for the defendants.

Antitrust LawCopyright LawTrade SecretsUnfair CompetitionFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractJoint VentureNoerr-Pennington DoctrineSherman ActNew York Common Law
References
57
Showing 1-4 of 4 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