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

Matter of Center for Discovery, Inc. v. NYC Dept. of Educ.

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

Neagle v. Nelson

Justice Robertson concurs with the majority opinion but respectfully disagrees with Justice Kilgarlin’s conclusions. Robertson argues that the legislative intent to abolish the “discovery rule” in *Gaddis v. Smith* via Tex.Ins.Code Ann. art. 5.82 and Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 4590i is not manifest in the plain language of the statutes and that legislative history should not be the starting point without ambiguity. He also finds the analogy to workers’ compensation law for determining permissible delay in malpractice cases to be strained due to numerous distinctions. Robertson maintains that the "discovery rule" issue and alternatives to workers' compensation analogy remain open questions, suggesting common law and equitable doctrines like laches. Justice Kilgarlin also provides a concurring opinion, addressing questions left unanswered by the court. He states that if the fact that Neagle reasonably should not have known of his injury during the limitations period is controverted, Neagle bears the burden of proof. Kilgarlin concludes that the legislative intent was to overrule *Gaddis v. Smith*'s discovery rule, and therefore, a two-year period after discovery cannot be reinstated. He proposes adopting the "good cause" standard from workers’ compensation law to determine permissible delay for filing suit after discovery in medical malpractice cases where discovery could not occur within two years of the tort or last treatment. Both justices concur in reversing and remanding the case.

Medical MalpracticeDiscovery RuleStatute of LimitationsLegislative IntentWorkers' Compensation AnalogyOpen Courts ProvisionGood CauseTexas LawConcurring OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eaton v. Chahal

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

Brown, Bonnie v. Whole Foods Markets, Inc.

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. ADJ2834861 (GRO 00349120) ADJ3453107 (GRO 0031731) ADJ405168 (GRO 0034913)
Regular
Nov 14, 2019

TOM JANISE vs. DSH ATASCADERO, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted applicant's Petition for Removal, rescinding an order that closed discovery and set a trial date. This was because a court-ordered neurology panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) was not selected until after discovery was closed, despite delays from the Medical Unit. The Board agreed that applicant should not be prejudiced by this delay and allowed for the QME evaluation to proceed. Consequently, the trial was converted to a status conference.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWCJQualified Medical EvaluatorDWC Medical Unitneurologydiscovery closureproof of serviceStatus Conferencerescinded order
References
0
Case No. ADJ11900759
Regular
Oct 20, 2025

Luis Hernandez vs. Cesar Chavez Foundation, Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration. The defendant challenged an earlier decision that found a contested claim existed when cost petitioner DocCentral provided subpoena services. The Board affirmed its previous finding, clarifying that a claim becomes contested upon an employer's delay notice, thus allowing discovery. The Board rejected the defendant's argument that a denial was required for a contested claim, citing prior en banc decisions to support its position on discovery during delay periods.

Contested claimLabor Code § 4620(b)8 CCR § 9793(b)Petition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Order DenyingDocCentralsubpoena servicesdelay noticemedical-legal expenseAdjudication of Claim
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bassile v. Covenant House

The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit in 1990 against The Order of Conventual Franciscan Friars, Father Bruce Ritter, and Covenant House, alleging sexual abuse by Father Ritter between March and May 1973. The plaintiff, who was 14 at the time, claimed severe psychological and emotional damage and argued for a delayed discovery rule due to repressed memories, asserting awareness of injuries only in April 1989. The defendants sought to dismiss the complaint on Statute of Limitations grounds. The court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that New York law does not support a delayed discovery rule for sexual abuse cases and defers such policy changes to the Legislature, despite acknowledging the plaintiff's asserted grievous wrong.

Statute of LimitationsSexual Abuse LitigationDelayed Discovery RuleCPLR ApplicationChildhood Abuse ClaimsRepressed MemoryFraudulent ConcealmentNegligence ClaimsFiduciary Duty BreachJudicial Deference to Legislature
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Napoleoni v. Union Hospital of the Bronx

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. ADJ6965045
Regular
Aug 22, 2016

Raymond Lopez vs. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Chartis Casualty

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Defendant C&S Wholesale Grocers' petition for removal. Defendant sought to depose two physicians regarding disability overlap, but the Board found they failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board noted the physicians had provided reports for years, and Defendant delayed seeking discovery until after the discovery deadline. Therefore, Defendant's request to take the matter off calendar for further discovery was denied.

Petition for RemovalOrder Taking Off CalendarOverlap in DisabilityBenjamin Carey M.D.Thomas Pattison M.D.Pre-Trial Conference StatementDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedJoint ExhibitsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
2
Case No. 85-4442
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Fashing

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
Showing 1-10 of 3,224 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