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
May 04, 1999

Doe v. Community Health Plan—Kaiser Corp.

Plaintiff sued Ericka Klein, Community Health Plan—Kaiser Corporation (CHP), and Christen Adey for damages due to the alleged disclosure of confidential medical information from her patient file. The Supreme Court initially granted partial summary judgment against Adey but dismissed several claims against CHP and Klein. On appeal, the Court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment but reversed the grant of CHP’s motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action, which alleged breach of confidentiality. The appellate court upheld the dismissal of the remaining causes of action, including those for statutory breach of confidentiality and intentional infliction of emotional distress, clarifying the scope of direct corporate responsibility for employee actions breaching confidentiality.

ConfidentialityMedical InformationBreach of DutyNegligent DisclosureStatutory BreachIntentional RevelationInadequate PoliciesNegligent SupervisionEmotional DistressRespondeat Superior
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hulse v. A.B. Dick Co.

In this repetitive stress injury (RSI) action, the court addresses whether plaintiffs are entitled to a protective order against nonsettling defendants seeking to discover confidential settlement terms with codefendants. Plaintiffs Audrey Hulse and Lewis R. Hulse settled claims against A.B. Dick Company and Sony Corporation of America, with an express condition of confidentiality. Nonsettling defendant IBM sought discovery of these settlement agreements. The court rejected IBM's arguments that the information was material for trial strategy, constituted a collateral source, or was necessary for impeachment. Emphasizing the strong public policy favoring settlements and confidentiality, especially in mass tort litigation, the court found plaintiffs' need for privacy outweighed defendants' reasons for discovery. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a protective order, maintaining the confidentiality of the settlement agreements.

Repetitive Stress InjuryProtective OrderSettlement AgreementsConfidentialityDiscovery DisputeCollateral SourceImpeachment EvidenceTrial StrategyMass Tort LitigationNew York Law
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Canal

The defendants in the Love Canal litigation sought to discover and copy confidential health records from the New York State Department of Health concerning the 1,500 plaintiffs. These records included questionnaires, hospital records, blood tests, and medical examinations, gathered by the Department of Health during its investigation into health complaints in the Love Canal area, with promises of confidentiality to residents. The defendants argued that by commencing litigation, the plaintiffs waived their confidentiality rights. The State, however, opposed the motion citing the Public Health Law's confidentiality provision, emphasizing the public policy of protecting privacy and fostering trust for health data collection. The court denied the defendants' request for records held by the State, finding no waiver of privilege for State-conducted studies. However, the court affirmed the defendants' right to seek medical records directly from the plaintiffs through proper discovery procedures, such as CPLR 3121, provided the defendants demonstrate the plaintiffs' medical condition is in controversy.

Discovery ProceedingsConfidentiality PrivilegePublic Health LawPhysician-Patient PrivilegeMedical RecordsToxic TortEnvironmental LitigationWaiver of PrivilegeCPLRNiagara County
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Pena

The defendant, accused of rape, sodomy, and sexual abuse, moved for discovery of records from the Rape Crisis Center where the complainant received counseling. The prosecution opposed the motion, citing confidentiality and lack of relevance. The court addressed the novel issue of privilege for rape crisis communications in New York, noting the absence of specific statutory authority unlike other jurisdictions. Balancing the defendant's constitutional rights of confrontation and access to exculpatory evidence against the complainant's right to confidential counseling, the court denied the motion. The decision emphasized the defendant's failure to provide a factual predicate for discovery, characterizing the request as a 'fishing expedition' and underscoring the social value of protecting victim-counselor confidentiality.

Discovery MotionRape Crisis CounselingConfidentialityPrivileged Communications6th AmendmentRight of ConfrontationExculpatory EvidenceCriminal ProcedureEvidentiary RulesVictim's Rights
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lightman v. Flaum

Plaintiff sued Rabbis Flaum and Weinberger for breach of clergy-penitent privilege, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation, alleging they disclosed confidential communications made during spiritual counseling. The defendants moved to dismiss, claiming no private cause of action exists for breach of the privilege, and that their disclosures were compelled by Jewish law or made in the presence of third parties, thus waiving confidentiality. The court ruled that a cause of action for breach of the fiduciary duty of confidentiality does exist, rejecting the argument that the First Amendment provides an absolute defense where tortious conduct is involved and can be determined by neutral principles of law. The court found the disclosure potentially actionable and denied dismissal for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but dismissed the defamation claim due to absolute judicial privilege. Factual issues regarding waiver of privilege remain for trial.

Clergy-Penitent PrivilegeFiduciary DutyConfidentiality BreachIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationFirst AmendmentReligious FreedomSummary JudgmentTort LiabilityRabbinical Counseling
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 1997

B-S Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Burns Bros. Contractors, Inc.

Plaintiff, a heavy construction business, alleged that defendant Burns Brothers Contractors, Inc., a material supplier, and defendant Robert E. Anderson, a former key project estimator for plaintiff, conspired to interfere with plaintiff's contracts and misappropriated confidential information. Plaintiff contended that Anderson, upon joining Burns, used its confidential bidding information to secure contracts with Champion Paper Company, Inc., which were originally intended for plaintiff. The Supreme Court initially granted a temporary restraining order and an order of seizure for files taken by Anderson, but later vacated the restraining order. Plaintiff moved to amend its complaint to add a cause of action for tortious interference with prospective business relations, which the Supreme Court granted, while denying Burns' cross-motion to dismiss. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that plaintiff's allegations of misrepresentations and misappropriation of confidential information to gain a competitive advantage were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Tortious InterferenceConfidential InformationTrade SecretsCompetitive AdvantageMotion to DismissLeave to Amend ComplaintAppellate ReviewCommercial DisputeEmployment LawUnfair Competition
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Godinez v. Siena College

Plaintiff, an alumnus of Siena College, initiated a lawsuit against Siena College and Shirley Staley, a nurse employed at the Capital District Psychiatric Center (CDPC). The action stemmed from Staley's report to a crisis team about potential violent behavior by the plaintiff at his graduation ceremony, information allegedly based on statements from the plaintiff's mother. Following this, Siena College declared the plaintiff 'persona non grata' and barred him from campus. The plaintiff alleged that Staley negligently disclosed inaccurate confidential information and that Siena College negligently barred him from campus without due process. The Supreme Court granted Siena College's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it, and subsequently dismissed the complaint against Staley at the close of the plaintiff's case. The appellate court affirmed both decisions, ruling that Siena College had the authority to ban the plaintiff as an alumnus and that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case against Staley because the alleged confidential information was deemed manufactured and thus lacked confidentiality.

Student conductPersona non grataConfidentiality breachMental health informationSummary judgmentDismissal of complaintAppellate reviewEducation lawExecutive lawCivil rights
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Constance B. v. Joan M.

This case involves a motion to quash a judicial subpoena duces tecum issued by respondent Joan M. The subpoena sought all records pertaining to Sonya M. from Under 21, a private, not-for-profit corporation serving runaway and homeless youths. The underlying matter is a petition where Sonya M.'s mother and her paramour, Robert B., are charged with child abuse and neglect. The court determined that the information sought was irrelevant to the neglect proceeding, deeming it a "fishing expedition." Crucially, the court found that Under 21 is legally prohibited from disclosing such information due to the confidentiality provisions of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act of 1978 (Executive Law, art 19-H, § 532 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (9 NYCRR 182.1 et seq.). The court emphasized the legislative intent to protect the confidentiality of runaway youth records, noting that the Family Court Act § 1046's exceptions to privilege do not extend to runaway home records. The court granted the motion to quash, affirming that the cloak of confidentiality for runaway homes shall not be broken without the youth's written consent.

ConfidentialityRunaway and Homeless Youth ActSubpoena Duces TecumChild Abuse and NeglectFamily LawStatutory InterpretationDisclosure of RecordsYouth ServicesConfidential CommunicationsLegislative Intent
References
2
Case No. C-5672, E-2429, C-5878
Regular Panel Decision

Buffalo United Charter School v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

Petitioners, consisting of Buffalo United Charter School, Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School, and National Heritage Academies, Inc., initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge and annul a February 14, 2011 decision by the New York Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). The PERB decision asserted jurisdiction over the charter schools, rejected National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preemption claims, and determined that assistant principals were neither managerial nor confidential employees. Petitioners contended that PERB lacked jurisdiction due to its joint public-private employment doctrine, that the NLRA preempted PERB's authority, and that PERB erroneously found the assistant principals lacked managerial or confidential status. They also argued the PERB decision unconstitutionally impaired their contractual rights. The court largely upheld PERB's jurisdiction, ruling that the Charter Schools Act superseded PERB's joint public-private employment doctrine and denying the NLRA preemption claim. However, the court annulled PERB's determination regarding the managerial and confidential status of assistant principals at Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School, reinstating the Administrative Law Judge's original finding on that specific issue.

Charter SchoolsPublic Employment Relations Board (PERB)Taylor LawNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)JurisdictionJoint Public-Private Employment DoctrineManagerial EmployeesConfidential EmployeesCollective BargainingCPLR Article 78
References
24
Case No. ADJ12349952
Regular
Oct 13, 2025

Dinh Tran vs. UL, LLC; Federal Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted in part a petition for removal filed by Dinh Tran, who sought to prevent the discovery of raw testing data from a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) due to privacy concerns. While affirming the underlying Findings and Orders on its merits, the Board intervened to correct a clerical error and amend the orders regarding the confidentiality of medical records. The amended order strictly limits the reproduction and disclosure of raw testing materials and data, requiring their destruction after litigation and mandating defense counsel to ensure confidentiality and report any violations, thereby safeguarding the applicant's privacy rights.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorRaw Testing DataRight to PrivacyClerical ErrorsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWaiver of PrivilegeNarrowly Circumscribed DisclosureConfidentiality
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 149 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