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

Rockland County Department of Social Services ex rel. McM. v. Brian McM.

The case addresses the applicability of Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (vii) to a nonparty mother's confidential communications with her psychologist and social worker during a child protective proceeding. The father, accused of sexually abusing his son, sought to subpoena the mother's records, which she moved to quash, citing privilege. The Family Court denied the motion regarding the psychologist, ruling that the privilege did not apply. This appellate court affirmed, holding that FCA § 1046 (a) (vii) abrogates psychologist-client and social worker-client privileges for all relevant evidence in child protective proceedings, not just for parties. It emphasized that the child's best interests in determining the truth of the abuse allegations and preventing unnecessary estrangement from the father outweigh the nonparty mother's confidentiality interests. The court ordered an in camera review of the subpoenaed records to determine their relevance.

Child Protective ServicesFamily Court Act Article 10Psychologist-Client PrivilegeSocial Worker-Client PrivilegeChild Sexual Abuse AllegationsFact-Finding HearingSubpoena EnforcementNonparty Parent RightsIn Camera ReviewBest Interests of the Child
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Grand Jury Proceedings Special Investigation 1198/82

The Bureau of Community Services, an authorized child care agency, moved to quash a subpoena issued by the District Attorney for confidential records concerning three children believed to be victims of crimes, sought in a Grand Jury investigation. The Bureau argued these records were protected by various privileges, including social worker/client, attorney/client, physician/patient, and Social Services Law § 372. The District Attorney contended that the social worker/client privilege did not apply to child victims under CPLR 4508 (subd 3). The court, citing precedent from *Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings (Doe)*, ruled that evidentiary privileges, though important, should not obstruct legitimate Grand Jury investigations into criminal activity, especially when the Grand Jury operates in secrecy. Consequently, the motion to quash the subpoena was denied in all respects. The court did order the District Attorney to photocopy the subpoenaed materials and return the originals to the agency within five working days.

SubpoenaMotion to QuashConfidentialitySocial Worker-Client PrivilegeAttorney-Client PrivilegePhysician-Patient PrivilegeGrand Jury InvestigationChild VictimsSocial Services LawCPLR
References
5
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01835 [215 AD3d 414]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2023

Bankers Conseco Life Ins. Co. v. Wilmington Trust, N.A.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York, which denied the defendant's motion to compel documents and serve additional interrogatories. The court found that Indiana's insurance examination privilege protected internal communications sought by the defendant. Additionally, Indiana's professional services privilege was deemed applicable to Washington National as a client, with no waiver despite the production of some nonprivileged communications. The defendant was also not entitled to confidential settlement agreements or pleadings from other cases due to a judge's protective order, and the request for monetary amounts was considered premature. Finally, the denial of additional interrogatories was upheld as overbroad, seeking confidential information, and rendered superfluous by the plaintiffs' damages expert report.

PrivilegeInsurance Examination PrivilegeDiscoveryMotion to CompelIndiana LawProfessional Services PrivilegeConfidentialitySettlement AgreementsInterrogatoriesAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Humphrey v. Norden

This case addresses whether an admission of paternity made to a social worker by a reputed father, in the presence of the mother, is a privileged communication under CPLR 4508. The court applied four conditions for establishing privilege and determined that the benefit of disclosing relevant paternity evidence outweighs any potential injury to the social worker-client relationship, as a correct paternity determination is vital for the child, mother, and community. Furthermore, drawing an analogy to attorney-client privilege, the court held that statements made to a social worker when two parties consult on a matter of common interest are not confidential in a subsequent action between them. Consequently, the court denied the motion to exclude the social worker's testimony, deeming the statements admissible in this civil filiation proceeding.

PaternitySocial Worker PrivilegeCPLR 4508ConfidentialityFamily Court ActEvidence AdmissibilityChild SupportIllegitimate ChildFiliation ProceedingWigmore Evidence
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dialysis Clinic, Inc. v. Kevin Medley

This interlocutory appeal addresses whether the attorney-client privilege protects communications between a corporation's legal counsel and a third-party nonemployee. Dialysis Clinic, Inc. (the corporation) hired XMi Commercial Real Estate (the third-party) to manage its properties. When tenants (Kevin Medley et al.) subpoenaed documents from XMi containing communications with Dialysis Clinic's legal counsel, privilege was asserted. The trial court ruled that the communications were protected, extending the privilege to XMi as an agent. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the attorney-client privilege applies if the nonemployee is the functional equivalent of an employee, the communications relate to the subject matter of legal counsel's representation, and were made with the intention of confidentiality. The court found XMi met these criteria.

Attorney-Client PrivilegeCorporate LawThird-Party AgentsFunctional Equivalent DoctrineProperty ManagementUnlawful DetainerConfidential CommunicationsInterlocutory AppealTennessee LawAgency Relationship
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2000

Jordan v. Olsten Corp.

Angela Jordan, an African-American woman, sued her former employer, Olsten Health Services and Olsten Corporation, under Title VII for alleged racial discrimination following her termination in November 1996 from her client care coordinator position. Olsten sought summary judgment, asserting Jordan was fired for violating a confidentiality policy by discussing administrative salaries. Jordan argued this reason was a pretext for racial discrimination, highlighting alleged bias from another supervisor, insufficient policy notice, a flawed investigation, and disparate treatment. The court found no evidence of discriminatory animus by the primary decision-maker, Joyce Markiewicz, and concluded that Markiewicz genuinely believed Jordan breached confidentiality. Consequently, the court granted Olsten's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Jordan's complaint.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentConfidentiality PolicyEmployee TerminationPretextDisparate TreatmentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkEmployer LiabilityWorkplace Discrimination
References
14
Case No. W2008-00936-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2010

The Hamilton-Ryker Group, LLC v. Tammy L. Keymon

This appeal involves a noncompete agreement and the Tennessee Trade Secrets Act. The defendant employee, Tammy L. Keymon, worked for the plaintiff employer, The Hamilton-Ryker Group, LLC, for fourteen years. Following a temporary layoff, Keymon solicited one of Hamilton-Ryker's clients, Verizon, and emailed numerous confidential documents from her work email to her personal email address. The trial court found Keymon liable for breach of contract, misappropriation of confidential information, and violation of the Tennessee Trade Secrets Act, awarding over $900,000 in doubled damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the enforceability of the noncompete clause despite lacking a territorial limitation, concluding that the emailed information constituted a trade secret, and supporting the damages award.

Noncompete ClauseTrade Secret MisappropriationBreach of Employment AgreementConfidential InformationUnfair CompetitionExemplary DamagesBusiness Relationships InterferenceEmployee Duty of LoyaltyDamages CalculationCustomer Solicitation
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson Service Group, Inc. v. Olivia France

Johnson Service Group, Inc. (JSG) sought a preliminary injunction against its former employee, Olivia France, alleging breaches of her employment agreement, duty of loyalty, and misappropriation of trade secrets. France, who served as a Branch Manager, resigned from JSG to work for Apollo Design Services, Inc., subsequently placing employees, including one previously considered by JSG, with Barnes Aerospace, Inc., a client JSG had actively pursued. The court, applying Illinois law, determined that France's non-compete and confidentiality clauses were enforceable. Finding a substantial likelihood of JSG's success on its claims and the threat of irreparable harm, the court granted the preliminary injunction. The injunction restricts France from engaging in similar business within 50 miles of a JSG office and from soliciting JSG clients or employees until March 2, 2011.

Employment AgreementNon-compete ClauseDuty of LoyaltyTrade SecretsConfidential InformationPreliminary InjunctionChoice of LawIllinois LawTexas LawStaffing Company
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Austin

Plaintiff John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company sued defendant Barbara L. Austin under the Labor Management Relations Act and New York law, alleging violation of a Covenant Not to Compete, breach of contract, and tortious interference with business. Austin, a former employee, allegedly retained confidential John Hancock records and used them to induce former clients to cancel their policies after joining a competitor. Austin moved for summary judgment, asserting the covenant was unenforceable. The court, applying New York law based on federal common law principles, determined that the restrictive covenant was reasonable in scope, time, and purpose, aiming to protect John Hancock's legitimate interest in confidential customer information rather than broadly restraining competition. Therefore, the court denied Austin's motion, concluding that genuine issues of material fact regarding Austin's actions and potential damages necessitate a trial.

Covenant Not to CompeteCollective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceSummary Judgment MotionFederal Common LawChoice of LawConfidential Customer InformationTrade SecretsRestrictive Covenants
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jeanne TT.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County that adjudicated the respondent a person in need of supervision (PINS) and placed her in the custody of the petitioner for 18 months. The PINS adjudication stemmed from the respondent absconding from treatment facilities on three occasions after being removed from her mother's home due to a prior neglect proceeding. The respondent argued that the Family Court abused its discretion by not substituting a neglect petition for the PINS petition and that testimony from social workers violated client-social worker privilege. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion, noting the respondent's behavior was not attributable to parental abuse and occurred while she was in residential treatment. It also ruled that the client-social worker privilege did not apply to the evidence presented, as the communications were not made to a certified social worker or intended to be confidential. Finally, the court affirmed the dispositional order, finding placement necessary given the respondent's history of incorrigible behavior and her mother's surrender of parental rights.

Family Court ActPINS proceedingPerson in Need of SupervisionClient-social worker privilegeCPLR 4508AbscondingPlacement orderAdjournment in contemplation of dismissalNeglect proceedingParental rights surrender
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 595 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