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 21, 2006

Robles v. Merrill Lynch/WFC/L, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied the defendants' motion to compel further deposition of the plaintiff's social worker. This decision was subsequently appealed and unanimously reversed by the appellate court. The appellate panel determined that the plaintiff had waived the applicable privilege under CPLR 4508. This waiver occurred because the plaintiff's bill of particulars affirmatively placed her mental condition in issue by alleging related injuries. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motion to compel the deposition.

Mental ConditionDepositionPrivilegeWaiverSocial WorkerCPLR 4508Appellate ReversalMotion to CompelBill of ParticularsDiscovery
References
1
Case No. 21-mc-102
Regular Panel Decision

Socha v. 110 Church, LLC

Plaintiffs, Marek Soeha, Jerzy Muszkatel, Tadeusz Kowalewski, Wla-dyslaw Kwasnik, and Waldemar Ropel, sought to compel expert testimony from non-retained physicians associated with the Mt. Sinai World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program and a Workers’ Compensation physician. These "Non-Retained Experts" possess unique knowledge regarding the effects of World Trade Center dust but were unwilling to provide data or serve as expert witnesses due to time constraints and concerns about compromising neutrality. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel depositions and amended expert disclosures, finding a lack of "substantial need" as the information was not unique and comparable witnesses were available. However, acknowledging the unparalleled scope of the Mt. Sinai WTC Health Program's research, the court ordered Mt. Sinai to produce its data, with appropriate redactions, following an established protocol.

Expert Witness DepositionMotion to CompelFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 26Non-Retained ExpertsWorld Trade Center LitigationMedical Monitoring ProgramDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Expert WitnessCausation TestimonyData Disclosure Order
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nadler v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the Tribeca Community Association, and the 67 Vestry Street Tenants Association sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the disclosure of a redacted joint venture agreement. The FDIC, acting as receiver for the failed American Savings Bank (ASB), withheld information related to ASB's subsidiary, Amore Holdings, Inc., citing FOIA Exemption Four for trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. The court, applying the National Parks test, determined that public disclosure would significantly impair the FDIC’s ability to maximize profits from its receivership assets and cause substantial competitive harm to Amore. Consequently, the court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint.

FOIAExemption FourCommercial InformationConfidentialityFDIC ReceivershipSummary JudgmentGovernment AgencyReal Estate DevelopmentFreedom of Information Act
References
12
Case No. ADJ3604849 (VNO 0545037)
Regular
Aug 17, 2009

TOMAS ARAMBULA vs. TODD RUTKIN, INC., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed petitions for reconsideration filed by Tami Navon and Ira Reinherz, D.C., finding the challenged orders compelling deposition attendance were interlocutory. The WCAB denied Reinherz's petition for removal, stating he failed to demonstrate prejudice from being compelled to attend his deposition as a lien claimant. However, the WCAB granted Navon's petition for removal, rescinding the order compelling her deposition as she is not a party or lien claimant and required proper subpoena service.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationPetitionDepositionCompel AttendanceLien ClaimantAdministrative Law JudgeInterlocutory OrdersSubstantive Right
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mercado v. Division of New York State Police

Plaintiff, a former Hispanic New York State police officer, filed a Title VII action alleging discriminatory disciplinary practices led to his termination. He moved to compel discovery of evaluations of fellow officers and disciplinary records of ten specific officers. The court denied the motion to compel officer evaluations, finding them irrelevant as plaintiff himself had superior evaluations. However, the court conditionally granted the motion to compel disciplinary records, deeming them potentially relevant, subject to a confidentiality agreement. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint as a sanction for plaintiff's failure to appear at two depositions. The court denied the motion to dismiss, citing the harshness of the remedy for a pro se litigant, but ordered the plaintiff to schedule his deposition and pay $130 in expenses for the missed depositions.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIPolice MisconductDiscovery DisputeMotion to CompelSanctionsPro Se LitigantConfidentiality AgreementDisciplinary RecordsPersonnel Files
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2000

Bordeau v. Village of Deposit

Plaintiffs Brian K. Bordeau, Francis Laundry Jr., and Jeffrey S. Laundry initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as New York State common law claims, against the Village of Deposit, its Police Chief Jon Bowie, and Village Justice Peter McDade. The lawsuit arose from an incident in May 1997 involving alleged unlawful arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several causes of action. The court denied summary judgment for claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution against Chief Bowie, and a state law assault and battery claim against Justice McDade. However, it granted summary judgment dismissing claims against the Village related to an alleged pattern of unconstitutional conduct and claims against Justice McDade based on judicial immunity. Additionally, all claims against the New York State Troopers, the Village Police Department, and punitive damages against the Village were dismissed. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining federal and state law claims.

Civil RightsSection 1983False ArrestFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionMunicipal LiabilityJudicial ImmunityExcessive ForceSummary JudgmentConstitutional Law
References
36
Case No. ADJ4067591 (VNO 0551402) ADJ4308603 (VNO 0559555)
Regular
Apr 12, 2011

MARIA BARAJAS vs. CONCERTO, INC., dba CITRON SPA, STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY

This case involves Dr. Herbert Marshak's petition for removal of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order compelling his deposition. The Board denied the petition, deeming removal an extraordinary remedy not warranted here. Marshak's claims that he was not a proper party to the deposition and that his due process rights were violated were rejected. The Board found his deposition had commenced and was continued, and he failed to object to the order compelling his attendance.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDepositionNotice to ProduceJewish SabbathDue ProcessCompelling AttendanceSanctionsContempt Proceedings
References
2
Case No. ADJ9837582, ADJ9835957
Regular
Jul 09, 2015

SANTOS GUZMAN vs. MAIN IMPERIAL, LLC, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Applicant's petition for removal of a WCJ's Order to Compel attendance at a deposition. The Board denied removal, finding Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Order to Compel was properly obtained via a walk-through procedure, not an improper ex parte communication. Furthermore, Applicant provided no valid reason for objecting to the continued deposition, especially after prior agreement and the alleged factual inaccuracy of his objection regarding deposition transcripts.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalOrder to Compel AttendanceDepositionAdministrative Law JudgeWCJCumulative Trauma InjurySpecific InjuryDue ProcessEx Parte
References
2
Case No. ADJ10395296, ADJ10401675
Regular
Feb 06, 2017

KATHRYN KIRCHER vs. CIRCULATING AIR, INC., YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Removal regarding an order compelling her attendance and her attorney's deposition testimony. The Board treated the Petition for Removal as a timely objection demonstrating good cause for the applicant's inability to attend due to hospitalization. Consequently, the original order compelling deposition was deemed void by operation of law. Therefore, the Petition for Removal was dismissed as moot because there was no outstanding order to challenge.

Petition for RemovalOrder Compelling DepositionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJGood CauseVoid OrderMootMedical ConditionObjectionExtraordinary Remedy
References
2
Case No. ADJ423557 (ANA 0341897)
Regular
Aug 30, 2010

BARTOLLO TERRONES vs. REMEDY TEMP, RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY, U.S. TILE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Select Staffing's petition for removal, upholding a WCJ's order compelling depositions and document production. Select argued the WCJ lacked jurisdiction over its non-party witnesses and demanded confidential financial documents. The WCAB found Labor Code Section 5710 allows compelling depositions of non-party witnesses, and the WCJ has jurisdiction to order production of the purchase agreement, with claims of privilege to be adjudicated later. No substantial prejudice to Select was found to warrant disturbing the WCJ's order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDeposition of WitnessesMotion to Compel AttendanceNotice to ProduceStaffing AgencyGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Labor Code Section 5710
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,605 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