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. 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

Giles v. Gi Yi

The dissenting opinion by Justice Whalen challenges the majority's interpretation of 22 NYCRR 202.17, which mandates personal injury plaintiffs to secure an expert witness report on causation and provide it to the defense prior to the defendant's medical examination of the plaintiff. Whalen argues this requirement is an undue burden and is not explicitly outlined within the regulation's scope. The dissent emphasizes that 22 NYCRR 202.17 (b) (1) only requires disclosure of reports from 'medical providers who have previously treated or examined the party seeking recovery,' distinct from expert reports generated solely for litigation purposes. Furthermore, Justice Whalen asserts that expert disclosure is governed by CPLR 3101 (d), which does not necessitate such early disclosure, and finds that the Supreme Court's decision to compel was an abuse of discretion, concluding that Nero v Kendrick was wrongly decided.

Expert Witness DisclosureCausationMedical ExaminationPersonal InjuryCivil Procedure Law and Rules (CPLR)Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court and County Court (22 NYCRR)Dissenting OpinionJudicial DiscretionPreclusionLitigation Expenses
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 1967

Holloway v. Board of Examiners

The petitioner, a school social worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to compel the respondent to provide copies of medical and other reports that led to an unsatisfactory rating in an examination for a Supervisor of School Social Workers license. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially dismissed the petition. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, granting the petition to the extent of directing the respondent to furnish the reports to a physician designated by the petitioner, rather than directly to the petitioner. The case was remanded to the Special Term for further proceedings, including a determination on allowing the petitioner more time to appeal the unsatisfactory rating.

Article 78 CPLRLicense ExaminationSchool Social WorkerMedical ReportsDisclosureAdministrative AppealUnsatisfactory RatingAppellate ReversalRemandPhysician Disclosure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1994

Juman v. Louise Wise Services

This case involves an appeal concerning an order that granted plaintiffs' motion to compel disclosure from a defendant adoption agency. The plaintiffs, adoptive parents, sued the agency for alleged fraud and misrepresentation during their son's 1966 adoption, claiming the agency withheld crucial psychiatric, psychological, and medical history of the natural mother. The IAS Court determined the complaint established a 'wrongful adoption' cause of action, a novel tort in New York, and ordered the agency to provide records and interrogatory answers for an in camera inspection. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, finding the lower court properly exercised its discretion in overseeing discovery to safeguard natural parents and in compelling disclosure under Social Services Law § 373-a and Domestic Relations Law § 114, given the adopted son's extensive history of psychological disorders.

Wrongful adoption tortAdoption fraudDisclosure of birth parent historyIn camera reviewDiscovery compulsionPsychiatric historyChild mental healthSocial Services LawDomestic Relations LawCPLR 4508 (a)
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2006

Velez v. Daar

In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff sought damages for psychological and emotional injuries stemming from a failure to diagnose thyroid cancer. The plaintiff engaged in psychotherapy with Dr. Velma Stade and initially limited the disclosure of related notes. However, during a deposition, the plaintiff disclosed that factors beyond the thyroid cancer, such as work environment and family issues, contributed to his psychological symptoms. Consequently, the defendant sought full disclosure of Dr. Stade's notes, arguing that the plaintiff had waived his psychotherapist-client privilege. The Supreme Court reversed the motion court's protective order, determining that the plaintiff had indeed waived the CPLR 4508 social worker-patient confidentiality privilege by placing his psychological condition in controversy, thereby making the disclosure of the sensitive records warranted.

medical malpracticepsychotherapyconfidentiality privilegewaiver of privilegeCPLR 4508psychological injuriesemotional distressthyroid cancerdisclosure of recordssocial worker-patient privilege
References
2
Case No. 07-12-0372-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2013

in Re Michael Rockafellow & MTBC, Ltd., Relator

Relators Michael Rockafellow, MTBC, Inc., and TBC Warehouse, Inc. filed a petition for writ of mandamus to direct Respondent, the Honorable Les Hatch of the 237th District Court of Lubbock County, to vacate an order compelling disclosure of hair care product suppliers to real party in interest, SalonQuest, L.L.C. SalonQuest had sued Rockafellow and MTBC for tortious interference, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract, seeking to identify suppliers who diverted products outside its authorized distribution channels. This is the second time Rockafellow sought mandamus relief on this issue, having previously succeeded in vacating an order authorizing pre-suit deposition based on trade secret privilege. The Court of Appeals found that Rockafellow successfully established that his supplier list was a trade secret due to extensive effort in development, secrecy measures, and its value to his business. SalonQuest failed to demonstrate that the information was 'necessary for a fair adjudication' of its claims, especially given the availability of other contractual and technological anti-diversion tools it had not fully utilized. Therefore, the court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling disclosure.

MandamusTrade Secret PrivilegeDiscovery DisputeHair Care Products DiversionDistribution ChannelsBusiness CompetitionTortious InterferenceCivil ConspiracyBreach of ContractAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. 2:96-0008
Regular Panel Decision

Farley v. Farley

The plaintiff, Sandra Farley, objected to a protective order issued by Magistrate Judge Juliet Griffin that restricted the disclosure of her child abuse investigation records from the Tennessee Department of Human Services (DHS) and Department of Children's Services (DCS). Farley argued the order constituted a prior restraint on First Amendment rights and that state privilege laws should not impede discovery in her federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Senior District Judge Wiseman, balancing federal interests in full disclosure against the state's compelling interest in child abuse confidentiality, modified the protective order. The modification allowed counsel to disseminate redacted information to clients, associated counsel, litigation personnel, and fact witnesses, and compelled current and former DHS/DCS employees to cooperate with discovery efforts. However, the Court denied Farley's request for access to other investigative files related to the individual defendants, maintaining that state confidentiality, primarily protected through redaction, must still be given deference. This decision aimed to facilitate the plaintiff's civil rights claims while upholding the state's public policy regarding child abuse records.

Protective OrderDiscovery DisputeChild Abuse RecordsConfidentialityFederal Civil Rights ActionFirst AmendmentState Law PrivilegeRule 501 Federal Rules of EvidenceRule 26(c) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial Review
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carney v. JNJ Express, Inc.

The case involves a motion to compel arbitration filed by JNJ Express, Inc. against Marion and Mervin Carney. The Carneys, independent truck drivers, had lease agreements with JNJ, which included an arbitration clause. They filed a complaint in state court alleging violations of Truth in Leasing Regulations (TIL) and breach of contract, without first attempting face-to-face resolution as stipulated by the arbitration agreement. JNJ removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration, arguing the Carneys were independent contractors, not employees, and thus subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court analyzed whether the Carneys were employees (exempt from FAA) or independent contractors and found them to be independent contractors. Consequently, the court granted JNJ's motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings.

ArbitrationIndependent ContractorFederal Arbitration ActTruth in Leasing RegulationsMotor CarrierLease AgreementInterstate CommerceTruck DriversMotion to Compel ArbitrationEmployment Status
References
14
Case No. ADJ7271031
Regular
Sep 21, 2012

THOMAS DACK vs. CEMEX, COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY administered by CHARTIS CLAIMS INC.

This case involves the defendant's Petition for Removal after the WCJ denied their request to compel the applicant's attendance at a QME examination. The applicant's attorney's office had previously stated the applicant would not attend QME evaluations until litigation was resolved and attempted to strike a QME. The Appeals Board is giving notice of its intention to grant the defendant's petition and compel the applicant's attendance, unless the applicant shows good cause within ten days. The Board finds the defendant has presented a prima facie case for compelling the examination, noting a lack of formal objection from the applicant.

Petition to CompelPanel QMELabor Code section 4062.2WCJPetition for RemovalApplicant objectionGood causeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorIndustrial injury
References
0
Case No. 95 CIV. 0004 (LMM)
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Arbitration Between Standard Tallow Corp. & Kil-Management A/S

The petitioner sought to compel arbitration in New York City concerning damages to goods shipped by the respondent from New York to Barcelona, Spain. The dispute arose from a contract between the parties which contained two conflicting arbitration clauses: one in Part I mandating arbitration in London, and another in Part II requiring arbitration in New York. The court, presided over by District Judge Motley, interpreted the contract, specifically a preamble stating that Part I provisions prevail over Part II in case of conflict, and also considered that the London clause was in the "typewritten" portion of the agreement, which typically holds precedence. Citing federal contract law and similar maritime contract cases, the court concluded that the London arbitration clause controls the location of arbitration. Consequently, the petition to compel arbitration in New York was denied, although no order was issued to compel arbitration in London as the respondent did not file a cross-petition.

ArbitrationContract InterpretationFederal Arbitration ActChoice of ForumMaritime LawConflicting ClausesContractual PrecedenceLondon ArbitrationNew York ArbitrationJudicial Review
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 2,023 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