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
Jul 13, 2000

Bordeau v. Village of Deposit

Plaintiffs Brian K. Bordeau, Francis Laundry Jr., and Jeffrey S. Laundry initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as New York State common law claims, against the Village of Deposit, its Police Chief Jon Bowie, and Village Justice Peter McDade. The lawsuit arose from an incident in May 1997 involving alleged unlawful arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several causes of action. The court denied summary judgment for claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution against Chief Bowie, and a state law assault and battery claim against Justice McDade. However, it granted summary judgment dismissing claims against the Village related to an alleged pattern of unconstitutional conduct and claims against Justice McDade based on judicial immunity. Additionally, all claims against the New York State Troopers, the Village Police Department, and punitive damages against the Village were dismissed. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining federal and state law claims.

Civil RightsSection 1983False ArrestFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionMunicipal LiabilityJudicial ImmunityExcessive ForceSummary JudgmentConstitutional Law
References
36
Case No. ADJ11240744
Regular
Jan 16, 2019

CODY BACA vs. JOHN MUIR HEALTH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal of an order allowing a second deposition. The applicant argued prejudice due to potential questions about an unrelated criminal matter and a hold on medical discovery. The Board found no evidence of irreparable harm or substantial prejudice, as the applicant could object to inappropriate questions during the deposition. The Board also noted that an evidentiary hearing on the deposition issue had already occurred and that medical discovery was only postponed, not indefinitely halted.

Petition for RemovalSecond DepositionUnrelated Criminal MatterFifth AmendmentPrejudiceIrreparable HarmEvidentiary HearingMedical DiscoveryPQME EvaluationDeclaration of Readiness
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nadler v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the Tribeca Community Association, and the 67 Vestry Street Tenants Association sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the disclosure of a redacted joint venture agreement. The FDIC, acting as receiver for the failed American Savings Bank (ASB), withheld information related to ASB's subsidiary, Amore Holdings, Inc., citing FOIA Exemption Four for trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. The court, applying the National Parks test, determined that public disclosure would significantly impair the FDIC’s ability to maximize profits from its receivership assets and cause substantial competitive harm to Amore. Consequently, the court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint.

FOIAExemption FourCommercial InformationConfidentialityFDIC ReceivershipSummary JudgmentGovernment AgencyReal Estate DevelopmentFreedom of Information Act
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oi Tai Chan v. Society of Shaolin Temple, Inc.

In this vigorously contested action alleging fraud and breach of contract, the court addressed several motions. Defendant Shi's motion for summary judgment was denied due to unresolved factual disputes regarding the nature of significant monetary transfers from the plaintiff to a religious organization. The court granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to resume defendant Shi's deposition, sanctioning defense counsel Kenneth Jiang for repeatedly instructing his client not to answer questions in defiance of prior court directives. Additionally, the court denied Shi's cross-motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel, citing a lack of necessary testimony, cumulative evidence, and the motion's untimely and potentially retaliatory nature. A special referee was appointed to supervise remaining discovery and settlement efforts.

Fraudulent InducementBreach of ContractDiscovery DisputeSummary Judgment MotionDeposition ObstructionAttorney SanctionsCounsel DisqualificationRules of Professional ConductAudio Recording AdmissibilityQueens County Court
References
68
Case No. ADJ8424952
Regular
Sep 10, 2014

ALFONSO CRUZ vs. SIERRA CIRCUITS, INC.; THE HARTFORD

This case involves an applicant's petition for removal regarding deposition questions about medical history and insurance coverage. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition in part, allowing questions about medical insurance and personal doctors, as these are discoverable under CCP § 2017.010. However, the WCAB found questions about past medical treatment paid by others and prior hospitalizations to be overbroad, as they could infringe on the physician-patient privilege regarding unrelated conditions. The Board ordered the applicant to answer specific questions but requires defendants to reframe broader questions concerning medical history to avoid privileged information.

Petition for RemovalFifth AmendmentFirst Amendmentphysician-patient privilegeconfidential communicationindustrial injurymedical historydeposition questionsCode of Civil Procedure section 2017.010Evidence Code sections 990
References
3
Case No. ADJ6550136
Regular
Sep 17, 2012

Vanessa Ford vs. County of San Bernardino

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, upholding the WCJ's disqualification of the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) due to ex parte communication during his deposition. The defendant's arguments that the deposition was permissible and that questions exceeded the medical issues were rejected. However, the Board clarified that the AME's prior reports remain admissible and the defendant may seek deposition costs.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)DisqualifiedEx Parte CommunicationDepositionQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Administrative DirectorPanel of NeurologistsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
0
Case No. LAO 862841
Regular
Feb 28, 2008

BAHATI H. SALAS vs. LIVHOME, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal and quashed the applicant's notice for a second deposition of Dr. Peterson. The Board found no good cause for a second deposition, as the applicant's representative was present at the first and failed to question Dr. Peterson on relevant matters despite having all necessary documentation. Allowing repeated depositions without changed circumstances would be neither expeditious nor inexpensive, contradicting the Board's mandate.

RemovalMotion to QuashDepositionAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Due ProcessGood CauseCredibilitySubsequent DepositionLabor Code 4062.3Substantial Justice
References
0
Case No. LAO 0863476
Regular
Jul 31, 2007

MARIA ANA PAREDES (Deceased) CARLOS ALFREDO ALVAREZ vs. ANDROMEDA ENTERTAINMENT INC., dba CLUB GALAXY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, rescinded the judge's denial of a motion to compel, and ordered the applicant to answer deposition questions. The Board found that the applicant's attorney improperly instructed the applicant not to answer questions regarding financial support in El Salvador and employment history, as such questions were reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under liberal discovery rules. The Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as it reviewed a non-final interlocutory order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMotion to CompelDeposition QuestionsIndustrial InjuryCerebellar HemorrhageWidowerGuardian ad LitemDiscovery Rules
References
8
Case No. ADJ8750265
Regular
Apr 17, 2017

EDUARDO VILCHES CABRERA vs. TOWN OF SCOTIA CO. PACIFIC LUMBER, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding a prior order that denied the defendant's request to compel the applicant's deposition. The Board found good cause existed for the deposition because a 2014 MRI showed a worsening of the applicant's knee condition, necessitating a second surgery, despite a prior QME report attributing 100% of permanent disability to the original 2006 industrial injury. This new development raised questions about potential subsequent injuries or intervening causes that could affect reimbursement. The Board permitted the deposition to gather information regarding the applicant's employment and any events between the QME's 2013 evaluation and the 2014 MRI.

Petition for RemovalSecond Order Denying Petition to CompelStipulations and AwardQualified Medical EvaluatorPetition to Compeldepositionmaterial change in medical conditionreimbursementsubsequent employmentgood cause
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2006

Robles v. Merrill Lynch/WFC/L, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied the defendants' motion to compel further deposition of the plaintiff's social worker. This decision was subsequently appealed and unanimously reversed by the appellate court. The appellate panel determined that the plaintiff had waived the applicable privilege under CPLR 4508. This waiver occurred because the plaintiff's bill of particulars affirmatively placed her mental condition in issue by alleging related injuries. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motion to compel the deposition.

Mental ConditionDepositionPrivilegeWaiverSocial WorkerCPLR 4508Appellate ReversalMotion to CompelBill of ParticularsDiscovery
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,739 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