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

Notaro v. Koch

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

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. 14-07-00590-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2008

in Re: Michael Hicks and Jerry Fazio

This is a dissenting opinion regarding a petition for a writ of mandamus. Justice Frost dissents from the majority's decision to conditionally grant the petition, arguing that the relators, Michael Hicks and Jerry Fazio, failed to meet their heavy burden to show the trial court clearly abused its discretion by compelling discovery. The dissent contends that the majority incorrectly imposed the burden on the real parties in interest (Taylor and Heitkamp), misapplied Texas Rule of Evidence 511 regarding privilege waiver, and improperly considered extrinsic evidence to interpret an unambiguous bankruptcy court order. Justice Frost asserts that Hicks implicitly waived attorney-client and work-product privileges through the assignment of claims in his bankruptcy case and that Hicks and Fazio waived other discovery objections by not asserting them timely. Therefore, the dissent concludes the petition for writ of mandamus should have been denied in its entirety.

MandamusWrit of MandamusDiscovery DisputeAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork-Product PrivilegePrivilege WaiverAssignment of ClaimsBankruptcy LawTrial Court DiscretionAppellate Procedure
References
18
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

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. ADJ7196912
Regular
Jul 24, 2012

BOBBY BROWN vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP

The defendants sought reconsideration or removal of a prior order allowing broad discovery of their claims file. The Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as the prior order was not final, but granted removal to admit specific exhibits. The Board affirmed the original order's allowance of discovery of the claims file, except for privileged material, and returned the case for further proceedings. A dissenting opinion argued the discovery was overly broad and not sufficiently relevant to justify the burden on the defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationFindings and OrderClaims FileSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashDiscoveryAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product Doctrine
References
0
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Glassdoor, Inc. v. Andra Grp., LP

This case concerns Glassdoor, Inc.'s appeal against a trial court's decision in a Rule 202 pre-suit discovery petition filed by Andra Group, LP. Andra sought to uncover the identities of anonymous users who posted negative reviews on Glassdoor's website, alleging potential claims of defamation and business disparagement. Glassdoor, joined by two anonymous reviewers, moved to dismiss under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 27 (anti-SLAPP), which was denied. The trial court granted Andra's discovery petition, limiting it to specific reviews and statements. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the Rule 202 discovery was appropriate, the likely benefits outweighed the burdens, and it did not infringe upon First Amendment rights or violate Chapter 27.

DiscoveryPre-suit DiscoveryAnonymous SpeechDefamationBusiness DisparagementAnti-SLAPPTexas LawRule 202First AmendmentAppellate Review
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 2,890 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