Gullo v. Bellhaven Ctr. for Geriatric & Rehabilitative Care, Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 February 2014 |
| Parties | Lenny GULLO, et al., appellants, v. BELLHAVEN CENTER FOR GERIATRIC AND REHABILITATIVE CARE, INC., also known as Bellhaven Nursing Center, et al., respondents, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Joseph C. Stroble, Sayville, N.Y., for appellants.
Furey, Kerley, Walsh, Matera & Cinquemani, P.C., Seaford, N.Y. (Lauren B. Bristol of counsel), for respondents.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated October 11, 2012, which granted the motion of the defendants Bellhaven Center for Geriatric and Rehabilitative Care, Inc., also known as Bellhaven Nursing Center, and “ABC” Corporation, also known as Bellhaven Nursing Center, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a new determination of the motion after final resolution of a prompt application to the Workers' Compensation Board to determine the parties' rights under the Workers' Compensation Law.
The plaintiff Lenny Gullo (hereinafter Gullo) is employed by the respondents. In 2005, approximately one year into his employment, Gullo underwent a routine employee blood test, which tested positive for the Hepatitis C antibody. Gullo was not informed of the test results and only learned, in 2009, that he suffered from Hepatitis C.
Gullo, with his wife and daughter, commenced this action against the respondents, among others, alleging damages resulting from the delay in diagnosing his condition allegedly caused by the respondents' failure to disclose his test results. The respondents moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, solely on the ground that the Workers' Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy for the damages alleged in the complaint. The Supreme Court agreed, and granted the motion.
“The Court of Appeals has held that the Workers' Compensation Board [hereinafter the Board] ‘has primary jurisdiction over the issue of the availability of [workers' compensation] coverage,’ and if a plaintiff fails to litigate that issue before the Board, ‘the court should not express an opinion as to the availability of compensation but remit the matter to the Board,’ since ‘[t]he compensation claim is a jurisdictional predicate to the civil action’ ” ( O'Hurley–Pitts v. Diocese of Rockville Ctr., 57 A.D.3d 633, 634, 869 N.Y.S.2d 185, quoting Liss v. Trans Auto...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Campbell v. New Way Life, Inc.
-
Narro v. MMC Holding of Brooklyn, Inc.
...496 N.E.2d 851; Botwinick v. Ogden, 59 N.Y.2d 909, 911, 466 N.Y.S.2d 291, 453 N.E.2d 520; Gullo v. Bellhaven Ctr. for Geriatric & Rehabilitative Care, Inc., 114 A.D.3d 905, 906, 981 N.Y.S.2d 140; Monteiro v. Rasraj Foods & Catering, Inc., 79 A.D.3d 827, 912 N.Y.S.2d 437; O'Hurley–Pitts v. D......
-
Brown v. Hall
...for damages or whether [she] is limited to benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law” (Gullo v. Bellhaven Ctr. for Geriatric & Rehabilitative Care, Inc., 114 A.D.3d 905, 906–907, 981 N.Y.S.2d 140 ). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine the mot......
-
Davis v. Erie Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
...for damages or whether he is limited to benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law (Gullo v. Bellhaven Ctr. for Geriatric & Rehabilitative Care, Inc., 114 A.D.3d 905, 906–907, 981 N.Y.S.2d 140 ). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine the motion ......