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

Emspak v. Conroy

The defendants moved for a further bill of particulars regarding item 30 and requested the entire bill be verified by a union officer. The plaintiff's attorney acknowledged the omission for item 30 was an oversight and agreed to provide it. He argued his self-verification was proper under subdivision 3 of rule 99 of the Rules of Civil Practice, citing the plaintiff's absence from the county, and claimed defendants waived objection by not returning the bill within 24 hours. The court clarified that Rules 10 and 11 do not apply to verification. While an attorney can verify a bill of particulars under rule 117, the court ruled that merely stating the party is out of county is insufficient; the attorney must also detail the basis of their knowledge, especially given a prior order requiring an oath for inability to furnish particulars. The motion for a further bill was granted.

Bill of particularsVerificationAttorney verificationRules of Civil PracticeWaiverMotionCourt procedurePleadingSufficiency of verification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2004

Zenteno v. Geils

The defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted the plaintiff's motion to restore a personal injury action to the trial calendar and for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for delay, citing extensive medical evaluations and difficulties obtaining authorization from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The court also determined that the defendants were not prejudiced by the restoration. Furthermore, an alleged agreement to proceed to arbitration was deemed unenforceable due to non-compliance with CPLR 2104 "open court" requirements. Finally, the Supreme Court's decision to grant leave for a supplemental bill of particulars was upheld, as it pertained to continuing consequences of existing injuries rather than new ones, aligning with CPLR 3043 [b].

Personal InjuryTrial Calendar RestorationSupplemental Bill of ParticularsArbitration Agreement EnforcementCPLR 2104CPLR 3043Medical ExaminationsWorkers' Compensation IssuesAppellate ReviewProcedural Motion
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2009

D'Elia v. City of New York

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, concerning personal injuries sustained while working as a surveyor. The original order granted summary judgment to defendants on common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) claims, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend his bill of particulars to include a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.23. The appellate court modified the order, granting the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend his bill of particulars and denying summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, finding defendants lacked supervisory authority over the plaintiff's work. The case involved an alleged fall on a steeply inclined slope made of loosely compacted dirt and rocks at a construction site.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentBill of Particulars AmendmentConstruction Site AccidentWorkplace SafetyIndustrial Code ViolationNegligenceAppellate ReviewEarthen Slope Fall
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hornacek v. Zurich Insurance

This case addresses a dispute over discovery in a personal injury action arising from a December 14, 1974, automobile accident. The plaintiff, suffering from complete amnesia due to a severe head injury, sought to recover basic economic loss from his automobile insurer. The defendant insurer denied coverage, citing an exclusion for intoxication as an affirmative defense. Plaintiff moved under CPLR 3041 to compel the defendant to provide a bill of particulars detailing witnesses and documentary evidence supporting the intoxication defense. Defendant cross-moved to vacate or modify this demand, arguing the information was evidentiary. The court, recognizing the plaintiff's amnesia as a 'special circumstance,' granted the plaintiff's motion in part, ordering the defendant to disclose the requested information to ensure fairness and prevent surprise at trial, while denying the defendant's motion to vacate.

Bill of ParticularsAffirmative DefenseAmnesiaIntoxication ExclusionInsurance CoverageSpecial CircumstancesEvidentiary DisclosureCPLR 3041CPLR 3123Automobile Accident
References
9
Case No. 01-02-01008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2003

Landmark Chevrolet, Corp. & Bill Heard Chevrolet, Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal brought by Landmark Chevrolet Corp., Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp., and Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, 'the dealerships') against Universal Underwriters Insurance Company ('Universal'). The dealerships were sued in two underlying class-action lawsuits by customers alleging violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud due to being charged a 'Consumer Services Fee' for a worthless coupon book. Universal, the dealerships' insurer, declined to defend them under their Statute and Title E&O (STEO) coverage, which only covered claims arising from violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws. Universal then filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend. The trial court granted summary judgment in Universal’s favor. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the 'eight-corners rule' and concluding that the underlying petitions did not allege facts indicating violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws, and declined to consider extrinsic evidence.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendEight-Corners RuleTruth-in-Lending LawsTruth-in-Leasing LawsDeclaratory JudgmentClass Action LawsuitsTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer Services FeeAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 1975

Flynn v. Mario & Di Bono Plastering Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on August 8, 1975, denying the third-party defendant’s motion for an order of preclusion or to compel plaintiffs and the third-party plaintiff to provide certain particulars. The underlying case involves a wrongful death claim by plaintiffs, whose testate iron worker allegedly died from lung cancer due to asbestos exposure at a construction site. The plaintiffs alleged negligence against the manufacturer and supplier of the asbestos product for failing to comply with statutes, rules, and regulations. The third-party plaintiff, in turn, charged the appellant (third-party defendant) with similar violations. The appellate court unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order, directing the plaintiffs-respondents and third-party plaintiff-respondent to furnish a further bill of particulars. The decision highlighted the requirement in tort actions to specifically identify any statutory violations asserted.

asbestos exposurewrongful deathlung cancerstatutory violationbill of particularsnegligencethird-party claimappellate reviewmotion to precludecause of action
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fleming v. Bernauer

This case involves motions and a cross-motion related to discovery and a bill of particulars. Plaintiffs sought protective orders regarding collateral source information and several demands in the bill of particulars, which were mostly denied by the court, except for demands 7 and 11, which were granted. Plaintiffs' motion to preclude based on the defendant's bill of particulars response was also denied, with a directive for the defendant to respond after deposing the plaintiff. The defendant's cross-motion to compel the Workers' Compensation Board file number was granted.

DiscoveryBill of ParticularsCollateral SourceCPLRLabor LawWorkers' CompensationProtective OrderPreclusion MotionPersonal Injury
References
5
Case No. ADJ7332232
Regular
Jul 01, 2014

Domingo Mogo vs. Cardenas Markets Inc.

This case involves a lien claimant, True Scan Legal Copy Service, seeking reconsideration of defense counsel's Bill of Particulars for defense costs. The lien claimant objected to the reasonableness of the billed expenses, arguing they included costs incurred prior to the lien trial date. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because a Bill of Particulars is not a final order subject to reconsideration. The Board noted that the lien claimant's petition should be treated as an objection to the trial judge's prior notice of intent to impose sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantBill of ParticularsDefense CostsWCJLabor Code Section 5813Title 8 California Code of Regulations 10561Final OrderSubstantive Rights
References
4
Case No. 13-09-00128-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2011

Petroleum Solutions, Inc. v. Bill Head D/B/A Bill Head Enterprises and Titeflex Corporation

The case involves an appeal by Petroleum Solutions, Inc. (PSI) against Bill Head d/b/a Bill Head Enterprises (Head) and Titeflex, Inc., regarding a jury verdict stemming from a significant diesel fuel leak at Head's truck stop. PSI challenged trial court sanctions for spoliation of evidence, and findings related to Head's claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and breach of contract, as well as Titeflex's indemnification claims. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Head and Titeflex, finding sufficient evidence for PSI's breach of duties and product liability. However, the court reversed and remanded for a recalculation of prejudgment interest.

Diesel leakUnderground storage tankEnvironmental regulationsSpoliation of evidenceFiduciary dutyBreach of contractFraudIndemnificationProduct liabilityAttorney's fees
References
153
Case No. 11-08-00110-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2009

Great Western Drilling, Limited v. Bill Alexander

Great Western Drilling, Limited, appealed a take-nothing verdict in its suit against attorney Bill Alexander. Great Western claimed Alexander conspired with his client, Marilyn Paschal, to convert insurance proceeds that Great Western asserted were its equitable property, purchased with embezzled funds. The case stemmed from an earlier suit where Great Western sued Paschal for embezzlement and sought a constructive trust on the proceeds. The trial court severed claims against Alexander. At trial, the jury found that Alexander did not have notice that Great Western owned the insurance proceeds, leading to a verdict in Alexander's favor. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding the jury's lack of notice finding was not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, and any error regarding expert testimony was not reversible. Alexander's cross-appeal for sanctions was also denied.

ConversionInsurance ProceedsAttorney LiabilityFraudEmbezzlementNoticeJury VerdictSufficiency of EvidenceExpert TestimonyAppellate Review
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 2,004 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