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
Apr 02, 2002

Mayancela v. Almat Realty Development, LLC

This case concerns an appeal of an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, dated April 2, 2002. The order had granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on the same claim. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. The dismissal was based on the "recalcitrant worker" defense, as the plaintiff admitted misusing an A-frame ladder despite explicit instructions. The court also rejected the plaintiff's attempt to contradict his prior deposition testimony with a post-deposition affidavit.

Recalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentLabor LawLadder AccidentDeposition TestimonySelf-Serving AffidavitAppellate ReviewNew York LawPersonal Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American International Telephone, Inc. v. Mony Travel Services, Inc.

Plaintiff American International Telephone, Inc. (AIT) sought an extension of time to serve defendant Carlos Duran, president of Mony Travel Services of Florida, Inc., after initial attempts at service were unsuccessful and Duran claimed to have moved. The court found AIT exercised reasonably diligent efforts and that extending the deadline would not prejudice Duran, who was aware of the action. Concurrently, Mony Travel Services of Florida moved for a protective order against depositions of Duran and its counsel, Francis Markey. The court denied the protective order for Duran's deposition, allowing inquiry into service of process issues. However, the protective order for Markey was granted, as mailing a copy of the complaint to an attorney is not a valid method of service under Florida law. The court granted AIT an extension to serve Duran until October 26, 2001, with conditions regarding deposition timing.

Service of ProcessExtension of TimeProtective OrderDepositionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJurisdictionGood CausePrejudiceFlorida LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. ADJ7626694
Regular
Oct 03, 2011

NARKEITHIA TATE vs. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY; EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN SERVICES

This case involves applicant Narkeiithia Tate's petition for reconsideration of a Notice of Intention to Order Dismissal. The WCJ initially ordered dismissal due to the applicant's failure to appear at her deposition and multiple conferences. The applicant claimed she was absent due to a family emergency and lack of knowledge about the deposition. The Appeals Board dismissed her petition for reconsideration because the initial notice was not a final order. However, the Board granted removal on its own motion, deeming the petition a timely objection, and returned the case to the trial level for a new judge to determine good cause for her absences.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to Order DismissalFailure to AppearDepositionWCAB ConferencesGood CauseRemovalAdministrative Law JudgeFinal Order
References
4
Case No. ADJ6966334
Regular
Jan 12, 2012

WALTER CADENA vs. UNITED CARRIER, APPLIED RISK SERVICES

Lien claimants sought reconsideration of an order compelling a deposition, arguing it violated a prior consolidation order. The Board dismissed the reconsideration petition as the Minute Order was not a final decision. However, the Board granted removal to allow Associate Chief Judge Kahn to clarify if his prior consolidation order applied to the deposition. The deposition order is suspended pending ACJ Kahn's review and advisement within 20 days.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder of Consolidation for DiscoveryAdministrative Law JudgeAssociate Chief JudgeMinute OrderDepositionLien ClaimantsDiscovery Matters
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Avila-Blum v. Casa de Cambio Delgado, Inc.

In this case, District Judge Marrero reviewed the defendants' objections to a protective order issued by Magistrate Judge Andrew Peek. The protective order barred defendants from inquiring into plaintiff Monica Avila-Blum's immigration status during her deposition, citing the prejudicial effect and minimal relevance at the liability stage, and the chilling effect on undocumented workers pursuing employment claims. Defendants argued that the Magistrate Judge erred in applying case law and in limiting the inquiry to the damages phase, asserting its relevance to credibility and citing Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB. Judge Marrero affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order, finding it was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, agreeing that the potential for prejudice and the questionable probative value outweighed the defendants' discovery interests at the liability stage. The court also clarified that Hoffman Plastic was distinguishable and limited in scope. Consequently, the defendants' objections were denied, upholding the protective order.

Protective OrderImmigration StatusDiscovery LimitsCredibility EvidencePrejudicial EvidenceFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEmployment DiscriminationUndocumented WorkersDistrict Court ReviewMagistrate Judge Order
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Infinity Insurance

Plaintiffs, Mexican seasonal farm workers, commenced an action seeking damages for personal injuries from a motor vehicle accident and for breach of contract from an insurer failing to pay no-fault benefits. After leaving New York, plaintiffs moved for a protective order concerning depositions, requesting alternative methods due to hardship, which the Supreme Court denied while granting defendants' cross-motion for depositions in New York. The appellate court dismissed Ramon Moreno's appeal as moot since he had been deposed. For the remaining plaintiffs, the court affirmed the denial of the protective order, finding insufficient proof of undue hardship, but modified the order to extend the deposition deadline to December 31, 2001, in the interest of justice.

Seasonal farm workersPersonal injuryMotor vehicle accidentNo-fault benefitsBreach of contractNon-resident plaintiffDepositionsProtective orderUndue hardshipAppellate review
References
2
Case No. ADJ6870715
Regular
Sep 08, 2010

JOSE VELEZ vs. PROGRESSIVE PRODUCE, ZURICH

The WCAB vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the lien claimant's petition because the appealed WCJ order was not a final, appealable decision. However, the Board granted removal due to the WCJ's procedural error in striking a medical report via an unauthorized "walk-through" order, which violated due process and WCAB rules. The case is returned to the trial level for proper proceedings on the defendant's discovery motion regarding the physician's deposition. The WCJ can then address issues like deposition fees and potential sanctions if the physician fails to comply.

WCABReconsiderationRemovalStrike Medical ReportDepositionFee DisputeDue ProcessWalk-through OrderWCJLien Claimant
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goodman v. Genworth Financial Wealth Management

This Memorandum and Order addresses a discovery dispute concerning the depositions of three non-party witnesses (Timothy McMullan, James Cook, and Timothy McFadden) in a class action lawsuit against Genworth in the Eastern District of New York. Defendants Genworth argued that a prior injunction from a parallel Connecticut case prohibited these witnesses from testifying. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Brown, found that the Connecticut injunction does not, by its express terms, bar deposition testimony in this matter, especially given existing confidentiality orders. Therefore, the court overruled Genworth's objections and directed the TJT witnesses to proceed with their depositions, allowing a 30-day period for Genworth to appeal the decision or identify specific objections.

Deposition TestimonyInjunction ScopeTrade SecretsConfidential InformationClass ActionMagistrate Judge RulingProtective OrderFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureFraudulent SchemeMisrepresentations
References
10
Case No. ADJ10832179
Regular
Jun 08, 2018

ELIZABETH OLIVAS MONTOYA vs. SADDLEBACK VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of an order compelling her deposition. However, the Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the deposition order, and returned the matter to the trial level. This decision was based on the applicant's inability to drive due to injury and subsequent complications with her attorney's health, coupled with the procedural issue of not allowing the applicant an opportunity to be heard before the order was issued. The Board hopes the parties can resolve the deposition dispute amicably at the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling Attendance at DepositionWCJCumulative TraumaInstructional AssistantPetition to Compel DepositionOpportunity to be heardKnee Injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ10837556; ADJ11301347
Regular
Dec 30, 2020

MANUEL RODRIGUEZ vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE, HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order allowing a second deposition, and returned the matter for further proceedings due to an insufficient record. Applicant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as the WCJ's order was not a final decision. The Board found that the applicant's filing was timely construed as an objection to the deposition order, and the WCJ failed to provide sufficient basis for the order or consider evidence. Additionally, the defendant improperly served the order, violating WCAB rules.

RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Granting LeaveSecond DepositionDue ProcessAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardThreshold IssueFinal DecisionExtraordinary Remedy
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 24,158 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