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. 2025 NY Slip Op 03615
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2025

Breslin v. Access Auto Sales & Serv., LLC

Matthew M. Breslin, a cable technician, was injured after falling from an extension ladder while installing new cable service. He and his wife filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence against Access Auto Sales, Spectrum, and National Grid entities. The Supreme Court denied all parties' motions for summary judgment, citing numerous questions of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to defendants for claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, and dismissing Access Auto's cross-claims for indemnification/contribution, finding no evidence of their negligence or supervisory control. However, the denials of summary judgment for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims were affirmed, as factual disputes remained regarding the adequacy of safety equipment and the proximate cause of the accident.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Labor Law Section 200Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentLadder accidentElevation-related hazardConstruction workProximate causeIndemnification
References
30
Case No. 02 Civ. 1243
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2003

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC

This opinion addresses a discovery dispute concerning the production of electronic data stored on backup tapes in a gender discrimination lawsuit brought by Laura Zubulake against UBS. Following a prior order for a sample restoration of emails, Zubulake sought to compel UBS to produce all remaining backup emails at UBS's expense. The court, applying a seven-factor test, ruled that both parties must share the costs of restoring and searching the inaccessible backup tapes. Specifically, UBS is ordered to bear 75% of these costs, while Zubulake is responsible for the remaining 25%. However, UBS must exclusively cover all other costs, including the review and production of the electronic data once it has been converted to an accessible format, emphasizing that only costs related to making inaccessible data accessible should be shifted.

e-discoverycost-shiftingelectronic databackup tapesemail productiongender discriminationdiscovery disputeproportionalityRule 26Rule 68
References
15
Case No. M2020-01368-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2021

All Access Coach Leasing, LLC v. Jeff McCord, Commissioner Of Labor And Workforce Development, State of Tennessee

All Access Coach Leasing, LLC, a tour bus leasing company, appealed an agency's determination, affirmed by the chancery court, that it misclassified its tour bus drivers as independent contractors rather than employees for unemployment tax purposes. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found substantial and material evidence supporting the agency's decision that the drivers were employees under the 'ABC test' of the Tennessee Employment Security Law, specifically failing Part B. This was due to the drivers performing required pre-trip and post-trip duties, such as inspections and cleaning, on the company's premises, which meant their services were not performed 'outside of all' of the taxpayer’s places of business.

Workers' CompensationUnemployment TaxIndependent ContractorEmployee MisclassificationABC TestCommon Law TestJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawDue ProcessStatutory Interpretation
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Access for El Paso, Inc. v. Hawkins

This case involves Medicaid recipients, providers, and an association in El Paso County, Texas, suing the Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), Albert Hawkins. Plaintiffs allege that HHSC's low Medicaid payment rates have led to inadequate access to medical services for El Paso Medicaid recipients, violating several provisions of the Medicaid Act, the Supremacy Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The Court found that Recipient Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Equal Access had standing for claims under the Equal Access Provision of the Medicaid Act, but Provider Plaintiffs did not have third-party standing for their patients. All other claims under the Medicaid Act, Equal Protection Clause, and most of the Supremacy Clause claim were dismissed. The Court ultimately found only one cognizable claim: Recipient Plaintiffs' claim that HHSC's low payment rates violate the Equal Access Provision. The case was certified for interlocutory appeal due to substantial grounds for difference of opinion on controlling questions of law, particularly concerning standing and the private right of action under the Equal Access Provision post-Gonzaga.

Medicaid ActHealthcare AccessPayment RatesStanding DoctrinePrivate Right of ActionSupremacy ClauseEqual Protection ClauseRule 12(b)(1) MotionRule 12(b)(6) MotionInterlocutory Appeal
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington Legal Foundation v. Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation

The Washington Legal Foundation, along with a Texas attorney and a legal services consumer, challenged the mandatory Texas Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA) Program, alleging violations of their First and Fifth Amendment rights. They claimed the program constituted a taking of property without just compensation and compelled financial support for objectionable organizations. The Defendants, including the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation and Supreme Court Justices, sought summary judgment, arguing the IOLTA program did not infringe on constitutional rights and served a legitimate state interest in providing legal services to the indigent. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, concluding that no cognizable property interest in the IOLTA-generated interest existed and no First Amendment violations occurred. Consequently, all plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Fifth AmendmentFirst AmendmentIOLTA ProgramTaking ClauseFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationSummary JudgmentTexasState BarLegal Services
References
51
Case No. 12-23-00212-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2023

In Re: Laura Lee Redman, Individually, Richard Redman, Individually, Brian G. Redman, Individually, Kristy L. Redman, Individually, Community Access, Inc., Redman Management, LLC, and Redman Legacy, LP v. the State of Texas

Relators (Laura Lee Redman, Richard Redman, Brian G. Redman, Kristy L. Redman, Community Access, Inc., Redman Management, LLC, and Redman Legacy, LP) filed an original proceeding challenging a trial court order that compelled them to respond to written discovery. The underlying action was brought by Kenny S. Frederick against the Relators for negligence and gross negligence related to personal injuries sustained by Devon Frederick at a care facility. The Relators argued the discovery requests were overbroad, encompassing irrelevant time periods, locations, and subject matter, and included financial information and employment files. The Court of Appeals found many discovery requests to be overbroad as a matter of law and conditionally granted the writ in part, directing the trial court to impose limitations on these requests. However, the court denied the Relators' arguments regarding confidential patient information and work product privilege due to waiver.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeOverbreadthTrial Court DiscretionAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureTexas LawInterrogatoriesRequests for ProductionAbuse of Discretion
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Data Race, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.

This case involves claims of patent infringement by Data Race, Inc. (plaintiff) against Lucent Technologies, Inc. (defendant) regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,764,639 for a "System and Method for Providing a Remote User With a Virtual Presence To An Office." Data Race sought a preliminary injunction and damages, while Lucent counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. The court denied Data Race's motion for a preliminary injunction, granted Lucent's motion for summary judgment on damages, and found no literal or equivalent infringement by Lucent's Virtual Telephone product. Consequently, judgment was entered in favor of the defendant, Lucent Technologies, Inc., on the issue of infringement. The court declined to fully address Lucent's defenses of patent invalidity and unenforceability, deeming them moot.

Patent InfringementPreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentClaim ConstructionVirtual PresenceTelephonyData NetworkingVoice over IPPrior ArtPatent Validity
References
116
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sonbuchner v. Sonbuchner

Justice Saxe dissents in part from the majority's decision regarding a child custody determination, while agreeing with the remand for a new child support award. The dissent argues that the pro se plaintiff was fundamentally denied due process by not receiving sufficient access to an 84-page court-appointed psychologist's report on custody prior to trial. This lack of access severely hindered the plaintiff's ability to effectively cross-examine the expert. Justice Saxe advocates for a new custody trial before a different judge to rectify this procedural unfairness, citing recommendations from the New York State Matrimonial Commission on providing access to such reports for pro se litigants.

Child custodyChild supportPro se litigant rightsDue processExpert witness reportsForensic psychologyCross-examinationMatrimonial lawJudicial discretionNew York Family Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital v. Sullivan

This case addresses a plaintiff's challenge to the defendant Secretary's Medicare reimbursement determination for 1976-1981, made through Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery for six documents and sought access to a large Medicare patient data base for statistical analysis. The defendant invoked the predecisional/deliberative process privilege for the documents and argued irrelevance and Privacy Act protections against data base disclosure. The court granted discovery for one document (27) and the data base, finding it relevant to challenges to the regulations 'as applied' and their contravention of Congressional intent. However, discovery was denied for other documents based on valid claims of deliberative process privilege, with one denial having leave to renew.

Medicare reimbursementdiscovery disputedeliberative process privilegePrivacy Actagency regulationshealth care financingadministrative lawpredecisional documentsdata accessfederal court
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Accardi v. Control Data Corp.

This case, a Memorandum and Order by District Judge Whitman Knapp, addresses an ERISA action where plaintiffs sought severance pay from their former employer, Control Data Corporation (CDC), following the sale of their division to Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP). Plaintiffs, initially employees of an IBM subsidiary, had their benefits, including severance pay, protected by a "Benefits Agreement" adopted by CDC upon acquisition. CDC denied severance, arguing the IBM plan didn't cover divestitures and citing its own policy. The court, applying an "arbitrary and capricious" standard, found CDC's interpretation of the IBM benefits plan, which it had adopted, to be clearly erroneous. The court concluded that the IBM plan indeed provided for severance in cases of dismissals due to division sales and did not require unemployment or prohibit "double recovery." Consequently, the court denied CDC's motion for summary judgment and granted it to the plaintiffs.

ERISASeverance PayEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationsCorporate DivestitureAcquisitionBenefit Plan InterpretationArbitrary and Capricious StandardControl Data Corporation
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 666 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