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
Aug 16, 1988

In re the Grand Jury Subpoenas Served Upon Doe

The Grand Jury of New York County issued subpoenas duces tecum to the law firm of John Doe, P. C., seeking various records. John Doe, P. C. moved to quash or modify these subpoenas, asserting attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. After an in camera review of 109 files, the court denied the attorney-client privilege claim for two files due to insufficient proof of confidentiality. For the work product privilege, the court applied the crime-fraud exception for specific subpoenaed records, citing an ongoing investigation into corruption in personal injury litigation. The court also narrowly construed the work product privilege. Consequently, the motion was granted for eight specific files found to contain protected attorney work product, while denied for the remaining files. The records not protected by privilege were ordered to be delivered to the District Attorney by August 18, 1988, following service of the decision on August 16, 1988.

attorney-client privilegework product privilegesubpoenas duces tecumGrand Jury investigationcrime-fraud exceptionin camera inspectionlegal ethicsconfidentialityevidence disclosuremotion to quash
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2014

Burbar v. Incorporated Village of Garden City

Plaintiff Jacob Burbar filed a motion to compel discovery against the County of Nassau and the Nassau County District Attorney's office in a case alleging wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. The defendants invoked deliberative process and work product privileges to withhold certain documents. United States Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson conducted an *in camera* review. The Court determined that the deliberative process privilege was inapplicable because the defendants' intent and decision-making process were central to the plaintiff's claims. Regarding the work product privilege, the Court ordered disclosure of fact work product while protecting opinion work product. Consequently, the motion to compel was granted in part and denied in part, with specific instructions for document production.

DiscoveryPrivilegeDeliberative ProcessWork ProductMalicious ProsecutionAbuse of ProcessCivil RightsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3)In Camera ReviewGovernmental Immunity
References
32
Case No. ADJ16246113
Regular
Sep 15, 2025

ELMER HERNANDEZ vs. TACO BELL, PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANIES

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration and removal concerning an order compelling discovery of market rate guidelines and the identity of a knowledgeable person. The Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petition, deeming it untimely and from a non-final order, and denied the removal petition. The Board found the defendant failed to establish attorney work-product privilege, as no attorney asserted the privilege and no evidence demonstrated the guidelines were attorney work-product. Finally, the defendant waived its argument regarding the knowledgeable person by failing to adequately brief the issue.

Cost petitionerAttorney work productMarket rate guidelinesPerson most knowledgeablePetition for reconsiderationPetition for removalFindings and OrderWCJSubstantial prejudiceIrreparable harm
References
14
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07909 [155 AD3d 1208]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2017

NYAHSA Services, Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v. People Care Inc.

Plaintiff, a self-insured trust, commenced a collection action against defendant, a former member, for unpaid assessments related to workers' compensation claims. Defendant counterclaimed and filed a third-party action against Cool Insuring Agency, the trust's administrators, alleging mismanagement. During discovery, a dispute arose over a report commissioned by defendant's counsel from a consultant, which Cool and plaintiff sought to compel. Defendant asserted attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, and material prepared in anticipation of litigation. The Supreme Court partially granted the motions to compel, a decision largely affirmed by the Appellate Division, Third Department, with a modification regarding a specific email exchange found to be protected attorney work product.

Discovery DisputeAttorney-Client PrivilegeAttorney Work ProductMaterial Prepared for LitigationSelf-Insurance TrustWorkers' Compensation BenefitsBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentThird-Party ActionClaims Administration
References
20
Case No. ADJ6784736
Regular
May 24, 2010

CYNTHIA ARMANDO vs. ENDODONTIC ASSOCIATES CORP., TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order compelling production of claims file documents. However, the Board granted removal, rescinded the original order, and issued a new order. The new order requires the defendant to produce non-privileged portions of the claims file and witness statements, and to describe any privileged documents separately. The Board also clarified that statutory privilege provisions, including attorney work product, are applicable in workers' compensation proceedings.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationClaims Investigation FileAttorney Workproduct PrivilegeWitness StatementsInterim OrderSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmAbsolute Work ProductQualified Work Product
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1978

SOCIALIST WKRS. PARTY v. Attorney General of US

This case involves an action by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) against various federal agencies and officials, primarily the Attorney General and the FBI, for alleged constitutional violations stemming from extensive FBI informant activities and disruption programs. The current opinion addresses the Attorney General's refusal to comply with a May 31, 1977, court order to produce 18 confidential FBI informant files to plaintiffs' counsel. The court rejected the Attorney General's arguments concerning informant confidentiality, appellate review, and alternative sanctions, emphasizing the files' indispensable nature for the litigation of plaintiffs' claims, which include demands for damages and injunctive relief. The court ruled that the Attorney General must comply with the production order by July 7, 1978, or face civil contempt, underscoring the judiciary's power to enforce orders even against high-ranking government officials.

Informant ConfidentialityDiscovery DisputeCivil ContemptGovernment MisconductFBI SurveillancePolitical OrganizationsFirst Amendment RightsConstitutional ViolationsAppellate ReviewAttorney General
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 1998

Brownell v. Roadway Package System, Inc.

Plaintiff Deborah Brownell filed a sexual harassment suit against her former employer, RPS, under Title VII and New York's Human Rights Law. She alleged a hostile work environment and retaliation following her termination. The central dispute concerned the discoverability of written statements provided by RPS employees to Defendant's counsel, which RPS claimed were protected by attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. The Court ruled that RPS waived these privileges by asserting the adequacy of its investigation as an affirmative defense, making the statements discoverable. Consequently, the Defendant was ordered to produce the statements to the Plaintiff.

Sexual HarassmentTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationDiscovery DisputeAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork-Product DoctrineImplied WaiverAffirmative DefenseEmployee Statements
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. Cassellas

In a sex discrimination case that resulted in a successful settlement for the plaintiff, Ms. Jackson, her attorney, William A. Price, Esq., sought an award for attorney fees and expenses. The defendant, EEOC, objected to the fee application due to concerns about the hourly rate, lack of contemporaneous records, and vague work descriptions. Presiding Judge Curtin, after considering the complexities of the case, Mr. Price's integrity, and the issues with document production, determined that a 15% reduction for vagueness and record-keeping deficiencies was warranted. However, the court also awarded a 10% bonus for the excellent results achieved and the difficulties encountered, resulting in a net 5% reduction. The final award for attorney fees was $291,405.85, with an additional $14,785.77 reimbursed for costs.

Attorney FeesSex DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1991Lodestar MethodHourly Rate CalculationContemporaneous RecordsVagueness of RecordsFee ReductionFee EnhancementSettlement Agreement
References
21
Case No. ADJ9426494
Regular
Jun 10, 2015

BARBARA SWENSON vs. COMPASS HEALTH, MURPHY AND BEANE, INC.

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, the applicant sought interview transcripts and statements of defense witnesses. The judge initially ordered the defendant to produce all such materials. The defendant petitioned for removal, arguing the order was overbroad and violated due process by failing to account for work product and attorney-client privilege. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, amending the original order. The amended order requires the defendant to provide requested materials, excluding those protected by privilege, for which a privilege log must be filed.

Petition for RemovalInterview TranscriptsWitness StatementsWork ProductAttorney-Client PrivilegePrivilege LogDue ProcessOverbroad OrderAppeals BoardWCJ
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Acorne Productions, LLC v. Tjeknavorian

This case details a dispute between Acorné Productions, LLC and Shant Mardirossian (plaintiffs) and Zareh Tjeknavorian and Alina Tjeknavorian (defendants) concerning the production of a film about the Armenian Genocide. Plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit in New York state court, citing various state law claims due to the defendants' alleged failure to deliver the film. The defendants subsequently removed the case to federal court, contending that the claims fell under the Copyright Act, and also introduced counterclaims seeking declaratory judgment and asserting breach of contract. The court ultimately concluded that neither the plaintiffs' claims nor the defendants' counterclaims established federal subject matter jurisdiction under the Copyright Act. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to New York state court but denied their request for attorneys' fees, recognizing that the defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for their initial removal.

copyright disputecontract lawfederal jurisdictionremandattorneys' feesfilm productionstate law claimsdeclaratory judgmentbreach of contractwork for hire doctrine
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 10,235 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