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

Matter of Steam Pipe Explosion at 41st St. & Lexington Ave.

This dissent arises from an appeal in consolidated pretrial proceedings concerning damages from a 2007 steam pipe explosion owned by Con Ed. Con Ed, a defendant, sought discovery from Team Industrial Services, Inc. (also a defendant) regarding records from the 2001 "Diamond Shamrock litigation" in Texas, arguing similarity in causation due to excessive sealant application. The Supreme Court denied this motion after an in camera review, finding insufficient similarity. The appellate majority reversed, granting Con Ed's motion to compel, but the dissenting judge, Friedman, J.P., argues this was an abuse of discretion. The dissent emphasizes the Supreme Court's thorough analysis of the distinct mechanisms of causation in the two incidents, concluding that the common factor of excessive sealant is superficial and the Diamond Shamrock files are irrelevant to the current matter.

Discovery DisputeAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionIn Camera ReviewConsolidated ProceedingsSteam Pipe ExplosionSealant ApplicationCausation MechanismPrior Litigation SimilarityPretrial Proceedings
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Napoleoni v. Union Hospital of the Bronx

This case involves an appeal concerning discovery motions in a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by Rosemarie Carreras and Jade Napoleoni against doctors Sushila Gupta, Geraldine Ahneman, and St. Barnabas Hospital. The plaintiffs alleged negligence during prenatal care that led to Jade's severe abnormalities from placental abruption. Defendants sought to compel disclosure of Rosemarie Carreras's substance abuse treatment records, arguing a link between cocaine use during pregnancy and placental abruption. The Supreme Court initially denied extensive discovery, but the appellate court modified this decision. It ordered specific records from Daytop Village and St. Barnabas Hospital to be turned over and allowed further deposition of Carreras regarding her substance abuse during pregnancy, ruling that the plaintiff waived physician-patient privilege and that the public interest in discovery outweighed confidentiality.

Medical MalpracticeDiscovery DisputeSubstance Abuse RecordsPrenatal NegligencePlacental AbruptionPhysician-Patient PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeConfidentialityAppellate CourtCPLR
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2018

Matter of Center for Discovery, Inc. v. NYC Dept. of Educ.

The Center for Discovery, Inc. appealed a lower court's dismissal of its CPLR article 78 petition against the NYC Department of Education. Petitioner sought reimbursement for additional, mandated services provided to a student with autism, which NYCDE refused to cover. The Supreme Court had dismissed the case, citing a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that NYCDE's definitive refusal to pay constituted an exhaustion of administrative remedies. The matter is remanded to the Supreme Court to determine if NYCDE must reimburse The Center for Discovery for the services it explicitly required.

Education LawSpecial EducationIndividualized Education PlanAdministrative LawReimbursement DisputeCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewAutism Spectrum DisorderChildren with DisabilitiesGovernment Liability
References
9
Case No. ADJ18376723
Regular
Oct 09, 2025

Miguel Mejinez vs. Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding an order that rescinded a prior directive for the applicant to disclose medical history under Labor Code section 4663(d). The defendant argued that section 4663(d) compels disclosure upon request and that they suffered prejudice from the applicant's refusal. However, the Board, concurring with the WCJ's recommendation, found that while section 4663 broadened the scope of discovery, it did not expand the methods of compelled discovery, which are limited to oral testimony and records under Labor Code section 5708. Consequently, the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm necessary for removal, concluding that written interrogatories are not an appropriate method for compelled discovery in workers' compensation cases.

Petition for RemovalOrder Rescinding OrderMedical History DisclosureLabor Code Section 4663(d)Previous Permanent DisabilitiesPhysical ImpairmentsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration Adequate RemedyWritten Interrogatories
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2005

Ackerman Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Hayes

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County, concerning discovery matters. The plaintiff had sued the defendant for alleged conversion of payments, and the defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract on seven specific projects. The defendant sought to compel discovery of financial records for all projects they worked on for the plaintiff, not just the seven disputed ones. The Supreme Court initially granted this broad discovery, but upon appeal, it was determined that the court erred in compelling discovery for projects not subject to the litigation. Consequently, the order was modified to deny the defendant's motion for discovery of records unrelated to the specific litigated projects. Additionally, the court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion for a protective order concerning a subpoena for bank records.

DiscoveryBreach of ContractConversion of PaymentsLien LawSubpoena Duces TecumProtective OrderAppellate ReviewConstruction LawFinancial RecordsCounterclaim
References
1
Case No. ADJ1415058 (FRE 0192009) MF ADJ4686427 (FRE 0193449)
Regular
Dec 18, 2017

ANGEL VALENZUELA vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

The defendant employer sought removal to challenge an order compelling the deposition of their claims adjuster and production of documents. The defendant argued that as a legally uninsured employer, discovery from their adjuster (SCIF/SCS) required subpoenas, not just notice. The Appeals Board denied removal, holding that workers' compensation proceedings are not bound by civil discovery rules and the adjuster, as the employer's agent, is subject to discovery via notice. The Board found no irreparable prejudice and affirmed the WCJ's order compelling discovery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeMotion to Compel DepositionProduction of DocumentsState Compensation Insurance FundLegally Uninsured EmployerSubpoenaService of NoticeLabor Code
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2015

Boice v. M+W U.S., Inc.

This case concerns a wage-and-hour action filed by Vincent E. Boice against M+W U.S., Inc., Total Facility Solutions, Inc., and M+W Zander N.Y. Architects, P.C. under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff moved to conditionally certify a collective action and compel discovery. Magistrate Judge Hummel recommended denying conditional certification without prejudice but granting limited pre-certification discovery for employee contact information. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby accepted and adopted this Report-Recommendation, denying the defendants' motion to strike the declaration and the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification while granting in part the motion to compel discovery. The court also denied other relief sought by the plaintiff and reopened the discovery period for 90 days.

FLSAWage-and-Hour ActionCollective ActionConditional CertificationDiscovery MotionOvertime CompensationJudicial ReviewEmployment LawClass Action ProcedureMagistrate Judge Recommendation
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Defendant Amtrak sought to compel discovery from the Office of the State Comptroller (OSC), whom Plaintiff State of New York (through its Department of Transportation, DOT) argued was not a party to the action. Amtrak contended that the State, as plaintiff, included all its agencies, making OSC subject to Rule 34 discovery, or alternatively, that DOT controlled OSC's documents. The court determined that DOT was the true plaintiff and OSC was an autonomous governmental entity, not under DOT's control for discovery purposes. Consequently, the court denied Amtrak's application to compel disclosure of OSC's records from DOT. The court advised Amtrak that it could pursue the documents from OSC via a Rule 45 subpoena, though such records might be subject to the Deliberative Process Privilege.

DiscoveryMotion to CompelGovernmental AgenciesOffice of State ComptrollerDepartment of TransportationRule 34Rule 45Deliberative Process PrivilegeState SovereigntyAgency Control
References
38
Case No. 88 Civ. 4475 (JMC)
Regular Panel Decision

Daval Steel Products v. M v. Juraj Dalmatinac

Plaintiff Daval Steel Products initiated an admiralty action against the vessel M.V. Ju-raj Dalmatinac and its owners/operators, Europe-Overseas Steamship Lines N.V. and S.P. Shipping Co., Ltd., seeking damages for alleged damage to steel products. Plaintiff moved to compel discovery or dismiss defendants' answer, while defendants cross-moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process. The court granted the defendants' cross-motion, finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the foreign corporations and that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for jurisdiction or justify further discovery on the matter. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery was denied as moot, and the complaint was dismissed against the defendants.

Personal JurisdictionService of ProcessAdmiralty LawMotion to DismissDiscovery DisputesForeign CorporationsTransfer of VenueRule 12(b)(2)Rule 12(b)(5)Rule 37(d)
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dun Shipping Ltd. v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.

Dun Shipping Ltd. filed a complaint to compel Hovensa L.L.C and Amerada Hess Shipping Corporation to arbitrate a maritime claim for contribution to costs incurred in refloating the M/T Knock Dun. Defendants petitioned to stay arbitration and for a declaratory judgment that the claim is not arbitrable, while Plaintiff petitioned to compel arbitration. Magistrate Judge Kevin N. Fox recommended granting Defendants' petition and denying Plaintiff's petition, finding Dun Shipping not a principal to the Voyage Charter Party and no need for discovery regarding Hovensa's notice of the Charter Party. The District Court, after a de novo review, found a contested factual record regarding Dun Shipping's status as a party to the Charter Party and Hovensa's knowledge and acquiescence to its terms. Therefore, the Court granted limited discovery to both Plaintiff and Defendants on these respective issues and referred the matter back to Magistrate Fox for further proceedings based on the outcome of the discovery.

ArbitrationDiscoveryMaritime LawCharter PartyBill of LadingContract InterpretationAgency LawVessel GroundingGeneral Average ClaimFederal Arbitration Act
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 2,098 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