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. Motion sequence Nos. 002 and 005
Regular Panel Decision

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc.

UMG Recordings, Inc. sued Escape Media Group, Inc. for common-law copyright infringement and unfair competition. Escape asserted DMCA safe harbor and CDA preemption defenses, along with Donnelly Act and tortious interference counterclaims. The court denied UMG's motion to dismiss the DMCA safe harbor defense, ruling it applies to pre-1972 recordings. However, the court granted UMG's motion to dismiss the CDA preemption defense, clarifying that the CDA's intellectual property exemption covers both federal and state laws. Additionally, Escape's Donnelly Act counterclaim was dismissed, but UMG's motions to dismiss the tortious interference counterclaims were denied, rejecting defenses like the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and economic interest.

Copyright InfringementDMCA Safe HarborPre-1972 RecordingsUnfair CompetitionCommunications Decency ActTortious InterferenceDonnelly ActNew York Common LawInternet Service ProvidersAntitrust
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Police v. Charles Q.

A State Trooper, acquitted of criminal charges, had his criminal records sealed. His employer, the State Police (petitioner), subsequently sought to unseal these records for use in a disciplinary proceeding. The County Court initially granted the application to unseal. On appeal, the court reversed the County Court's order, ruling that the State Police, when conducting a disciplinary proceeding against one of its employees, is not acting as a 'law enforcement agency' under CPL 160.50 (1) (d) (ii) and thus has no statutory right to access sealed records. Furthermore, the court found that the petitioner failed to meet the 'compelling demonstration' required for exercising the court's inherent power to unseal records, as it did not demonstrate that other investigative avenues had been exhausted or were unavailable. Consequently, the application to unseal the records was denied.

Sealed recordsCriminal Procedure Law 160.50Disciplinary proceedingState TrooperPublic employerLaw enforcement agencyInherent court powerUnsealing recordsAppellate reviewAdministrative determination
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mister Vee Productions, Inc. v. LeBlanc

This case involves a dispute over copyright infringement and breach of contract. Three corporations—Mister Vee, Delightful, and Vigor—sued individuals known as The Rhythm Makers, Paul Service, and corporations Arista Records, G.Q. Publishing, and Arista Music. Delightful alleged copyright infringement for the song 'Soul On Your Side.' Mister Vee and Vigor claimed The Rhythm Makers breached an exclusive agreement by recording other songs with Arista. The court addressed defendants' motion to dismiss non-copyright claims due to lack of pendent jurisdiction. The court ultimately declined jurisdiction and dismissed the state law claims, finding they did not share a 'common nucleus of operative fact' with the federal copyright claim.

Copyright InfringementBreach of ContractPendent JurisdictionFederal CourtState Law ClaimsMusic Industry DisputeExclusive Recording AgreementMotion to DismissJudicial EconomyCommon Nucleus of Operative Fact
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Grief Bros.

This employment discrimination case, filed July 1, 2002, involves Michael Sabo (Plaintiff) who alleges constructive discharge based on sexual harassment and claims severe emotional pain and suffering. The Defendant moved for a mental examination of Sabo under Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 and to compel the production of his medical records. Sabo alleged severe humiliation, anxiety, depression, loss of self-esteem, sleeplessness, and weight gain, and admitted to a history of depression, past suicide attempts, and current psychiatric treatment with prescribed medications. The court granted the Defendant's motions, finding that Sabo had placed his mental condition in controversy due to the nature and severity of his claims and his medical history, justifying both the examination and the production of relevant medical records. The court also granted Defendant's request for costs associated with compelling the medical records, but denied the request for costs related to the Rule 35 motion itself, and denied Plaintiff's request for counsel or recording during the examination.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeEmotional DistressMental ExaminationRule 35Medical RecordsDepressionSuicide AttemptsCompensatory Damages
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Nan FF.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County which dismissed an adult adoptee's application to unseal her adoption records. The petitioner sought access to the records based on medical need, as per Domestic Relations Law § 114 (4). However, her application was denied because she failed to provide a certification from a licensed New York physician. Additionally, the submitted letters from an out-of-state social worker and physician did not sufficiently indicate that access to the records was "required" to address a serious illness, nor did they identify the specific information needed, thus failing to establish prima facie good cause under the statute. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's dismissal of the application.

Adoption LawRecord SealingMedical GroundsGood Cause RequirementStatutory ComplianceFamily Court ProcedureAppellate ReviewPhysician CertificationOut-of-State CertificationDocumentary Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Handicapped Child

The Orchard Park Central School District (District) sought a court-ordered subpoena for psychiatric and psychological records of an infant student from the Western New York Children’s Psychiatric Center. The District intended to use these records in an appeal initiated by the student's parents concerning the child's handicapping condition. The parents cross-moved to quash the subpoena, asserting the records were privileged and their consent for release had been withdrawn. Justice Thomas P. Flaherty ruled that no legislative exception existed to abrogate the physician-patient and psychologist-client privileges in this context, especially over parental objection. Consequently, the court denied the District's motion for the subpoena and granted the parents' cross-motion to quash, underscoring the protection of confidential communications in a child's best interests.

Education LawStudent RecordsPsychiatric RecordsPsychological RecordsPrivilegeSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashParental RightsCommittee on HandicappedFair Hearing
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coratti v. Jon Josef Hair & Colour Group

The Workers' Compensation Board denied a claimant's motion to preclude a workers’ compensation carrier’s consultant report, which was based solely on a review of medical records, not an independent medical examination (IME). The claimant argued non-compliance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 137 (1) (b), a provision requiring notice if an IME is performed. The Board concluded the statute does not apply to records-review-only reports. An appellate court affirmed, holding that the plain language of § 137 (1) (b) explicitly refers to practitioners who have performed or will perform an IME, thereby excluding those who solely review records. The court emphasized that statutory interpretation must adhere to plain language, leaving policy arguments to the Legislature.

IME reportsrecords reviewWorkers' Compensation Lawstatutory interpretationpreclusion motioncausationoccupational illnessdue processlegislative intent
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2012

Liberatore v. Liberatore

The court issued an amended decision and order concerning a child custody dispute within a matrimonial action. The father improperly obtained the notes and records of the child's psychiatrist and clinical psychologist using a HIPAA release, bypassing judicial process. The court ruled that such records, protected by patient/psychotherapist privilege (CPLR 4504, 4507), cannot be disclosed without court order, emphasizing the court's role as parens patriae and the child's best interests. It found that a parent has a conflict of interest in waiving privilege on behalf of a minor child, and that HIPAA does not grant unfettered parental access if state law prohibits it or if a professional deems it not in the child's best interest. Consequently, the court denied access to the records for both parties and their counsel, ordering their return to the providers or destruction by the attorney for the child.

Child CustodyMatrimonial LawPatient-Psychotherapist PrivilegeHIPAAJudicial ProcessParens PatriaeConfidentialityMinor's RightsBest Interests of the ChildTherapy Records
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allman v. UMG Recordings

Plaintiffs, members of the Allman Brothers Band, sued UMG Recordings, Inc. for breach of contract, alleging unpaid royalties for the period of January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2003. UMG removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were time-barred. The court examined the recording agreements from 1985 and 1994, which included "Objection Provisions" and "Limitation Provisions" requiring written objections within two years and commencing suit within three years, respectively. The court found that Plaintiffs' objections and subsequent lawsuit were untimely for most statements, and no exceptions like waiver or equitable estoppel applied. Consequently, the court granted UMG's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

Breach of contractRoyalty paymentsRecording agreementsSummary judgmentStatute of limitationsContractual limitation periodWaiverEquitable estoppelTimeliness of claimsMusic industry law
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dibble v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

The Supreme Court order was unanimously modified on appeal. The modification involved deleting the provision that granted the third-party defendant's motion to compel the plaintiff to provide authorization for all of the plaintiff's workers' compensation records and medical records. The court reasoned that CPLR 3102 [a] does not contain any provision allowing a third-party defendant to obtain such authorization from the plaintiff. The order, as modified, was affirmed without costs.

Discovery DisputeWorkers' Compensation RecordsMedical Records DisclosureMotion to CompelCPLR 3102 [a]Appellate Court RulingPlaintiff RightsThird-Party Defendant ActionErie County Supreme CourtOrder Modification
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,966 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