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 15, 2018

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The Center for Discovery, Inc. appealed a lower court's dismissal of its CPLR article 78 petition against the NYC Department of Education. Petitioner sought reimbursement for additional, mandated services provided to a student with autism, which NYCDE refused to cover. The Supreme Court had dismissed the case, citing a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that NYCDE's definitive refusal to pay constituted an exhaustion of administrative remedies. The matter is remanded to the Supreme Court to determine if NYCDE must reimburse The Center for Discovery for the services it explicitly required.

Education LawSpecial EducationIndividualized Education PlanAdministrative LawReimbursement DisputeCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewAutism Spectrum DisorderChildren with DisabilitiesGovernment Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This consolidated decision by Justice William H. Keniry addresses common discovery issues across six negligence actions in Rensselaer County Supreme Court. The primary focus is the requirement for a "good faith" effort to resolve discovery disputes, as mandated by section 202.7 of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR). The court emphasizes that a "good faith" effort necessitates significant contact and negotiation between counsel. Due to a complete failure to comply with this rule, the motions and cross-motions in five cases (Eaton, Frament, Lindeman, Madsen, and Malave) are denied. In the Oathout case, the defendants' motion is conditionally granted, pending plaintiff's compliance with discovery demands. The court also outlines its position on substantive discovery issues like medical reports, collateral source information, statutory violations, age/date of birth, photographs, and authorizations for workers' compensation and no-fault insurance files.

Discovery disputesBill of particularsGood faith requirementCPLR Article 31Medical reportsCollateral source informationStatutory violationsWorkers' compensation filesNo-fault insurance filesJudicial discretion
References
19
Case No. 2016-01-0139
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2016

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Employee Bonnie Brown filed a Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD) alleging a compensable spinal injury sustained on July 22, 2015, in the course and scope of her employment as a food preparer for Whole Foods Markets, Inc. The disputed issues included the employer's failure to provide a proper panel of back specialists/neurosurgeons and to provide requested discovery documents. Ms. Brown subsequently filed a Request for Expedited Hearing, seeking to resolve these discovery issues based on a review of the file without an evidentiary hearing. However, the Workers' Compensation Judge, Thomas Wyatt, denied the expedited hearing request. The Court determined that Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law, specifically Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239, does not permit discovery disputes to be addressed through an expedited hearing. Instead, discovery disputes must be adjudicated upon the review of written motions and affidavits, and Ms. Brown was advised to utilize standard discovery procedures and potentially file a motion to compel if necessary. A Status Conference was set for June 7, 2016.

Expedited Hearing RequestDiscovery DisputesWorkers' Compensation LawSpinal InjuryPetition for Benefit DeterminationDenial of RequestProcedural RulesStatus ConferenceAppeals BoardTennessee Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case involves an appeal concerning discovery motions in a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by Rosemarie Carreras and Jade Napoleoni against doctors Sushila Gupta, Geraldine Ahneman, and St. Barnabas Hospital. The plaintiffs alleged negligence during prenatal care that led to Jade's severe abnormalities from placental abruption. Defendants sought to compel disclosure of Rosemarie Carreras's substance abuse treatment records, arguing a link between cocaine use during pregnancy and placental abruption. The Supreme Court initially denied extensive discovery, but the appellate court modified this decision. It ordered specific records from Daytop Village and St. Barnabas Hospital to be turned over and allowed further deposition of Carreras regarding her substance abuse during pregnancy, ruling that the plaintiff waived physician-patient privilege and that the public interest in discovery outweighed confidentiality.

Medical MalpracticeDiscovery DisputeSubstance Abuse RecordsPrenatal NegligencePlacental AbruptionPhysician-Patient PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeConfidentialityAppellate CourtCPLR
References
8
Case No. 85-4442
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This opinion addresses a mandamus petition filed by an unnamed Relator, identified as Kessler's workers' compensation carrier. The Relator sought to compel the Respondent, a judge from El Paso County Court at Law Number Two, to rescind a discovery order. The underlying case, Ricardo Rubio v. Kessler Premium Castings Company, involved Rubio's claim of wrongful discharge after filing workers' compensation claims for two separate job injuries. Rubio alleged he was fired in retaliation for his compensation claims, violating Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307c. He sought discovery of the Relator’s claim file, which the Relator resisted based on privilege under Tex.R.Civ.P. 166b(3)(d). After an in camera inspection, the Respondent ordered disclosure of parts of the file, primarily concerning Rubio's earlier back injury claim. The court denied the Relator's petition for mandamus relief, reasoning that the 'occurrence or transaction upon which the suit is based' for wrongful discharge is the discharge itself, not the antecedent injury claim, thus not falling under the discovery privilege for investigations related to the claim.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeWorkers' CompensationWrongful DischargeRetaliatory DischargeDiscovery PrivilegeIn Camera InspectionTexas Civil ProcedureInsurance Claim FileCause of Action
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The plaintiff, chairman of the Brewery Workers’ Pension Fund, seeks to hold an unnamed defendant accountable for an uncollected judgment exceeding $10,000. This judgment was originally obtained against Ebling Brewing Company, Inc., for unpaid pension fund contributions. The plaintiff alleges that Ebling was the defendant's wholly-owned subsidiary, operating as its agent under the defendant's extensive control. While the defendant moved for summary judgment, the plaintiff concurrently pursued discovery and inspection of the defendant's records. The court granted the plaintiff's discovery motion and decided to hold the summary judgment motion in abeyance, emphasizing the necessity for the plaintiff to access facts uniquely within the defendant's knowledge before a final determination.

Summary JudgmentDiscoveryCorporate VeilParent-Subsidiary LiabilityUnpaid ContributionsPension FundJudgment EnforcementInterlocutory OrderProcedural RulingAffiliation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case involves an appeal by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (National Union) against an order of sanctions for abuse of discovery. The original suit was filed by Jones, appealing an industrial accident board award in a worker’s compensation claim. The trial court sanctioned National Union for evasive responses to discovery requests, ordering them to respond to admissions and pay $1,200 in attorneys' fees. On appeal, the court found that National Union had not waived its right to appeal the sanctions due to an explicit reservation in the agreed judgment. The court affirmed the trial court's order of sanctions, finding no abuse of discretion, and also denied Jones' cross-point seeking damages for a frivolous appeal.

Discovery AbuseSanctionsAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationAttorneys' FeesDue ProcessWaiver of AppealFrivolous AppealTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureTexas Rules of Appellate Procedure
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The plaintiffs (James Notaro, George Longworth, and Pearse O’Callaghan), members of the Liberal Party, sued Edward Koch, Mayor of New York City and a gubernatorial candidate, alleging violations of their First Amendment rights. They claimed Koch threatened to fire Liberal Party members from state payroll if elected Governor and sought a permanent injunction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited discovery to depose Koch within 30 days. The court denied this motion, finding the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, a strong probability of success on the merits, a connection between expedited discovery and avoiding injury, or that their potential injury outweighed the defendant's burden. The court also noted weaknesses in their legal arguments, including prematurity and lack of state action, but denied the motion without prejudice, allowing them to refile with a stronger case.

Political AffiliationFirst Amendment RightsFreedom of SpeechExpedited DiscoveryCivil RightsIrreparable InjuryPreliminary InjunctionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(a)Constitutional LawGubernatorial Election
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This appeal stems from a wrongful death action where the plaintiff's decedent died of a heart attack after working at a fire scene. The plaintiff sought discovery from the defendant, Telephone Company, regarding the fire and workplace conditions. The defendant appealed Justice Wright's order to comply with discovery demands. The appellate court modified the order, striking plaintiff's demand number two as overly broad and burdensome, while affirming demands three and four as sufficiently specific, thus partially affirming and partially modifying the original order.

DiscoveryInspectionWrongful DeathWorkplace SafetyFire IncidentAppellate ReviewProtective OrderBurdensome DemandsSpecificity in DiscoveryCivil Procedure
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

In an action seeking damages for personal injuries, the defendants initiated an appeal against two orders issued by the Supreme Court, Queens County. The first order, dated June 11, 1998, denied their motion for discovery related to earnings, no-fault benefits, and Workers’ Compensation benefits. The second order, dated September 14, 1998, rejected their request for the plaintiffs to provide authorization for obtaining Social Security Disability records. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in limiting collateral source discovery. The ruling referenced City of Mount Vernon v Lexington Ins. Co. as a general precedent.

DiscoveryCollateral Source RulePersonal Injury DamagesNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security DisabilityAppellate ProcedureEvidence RulesJudicial DiscretionCivil Procedure
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,593 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