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. ADJ7269617
Regular
Nov 28, 2011

LARRY MCATEE vs. WOLSELEY MANAGEMENT, INC dba FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC, PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant's claims for specific and cumulative trauma industrial injuries to his back and nervous system. The defendant petitioned for removal and reconsideration after the administrative law judge (WCJ) closed discovery. Parties subsequently agreed to conduct additional discovery, which the WCJ acknowledged and recommended rescinding the discovery closure order. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the discovery closure order, and dismissed the petition for reconsideration as moot.

RemovalReconsiderationClosing DiscoveryRescinded OrderMandatory Settlement ConferencePetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjurySpecific InjuryCumulative Trauma
References
0
Case No. MON 310553
Regular
Sep 05, 2007

, LAZARO MARTINEZ vs. , WEDGESTONE CORP.;, CRUM & FORSTER

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ's order closing discovery. The applicant argued that discovery should not have been closed as their serious and willful misconduct claim was not addressed at the Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) and the case was subsequently taken off calendar. The Board agreed that the closure of discovery was improper, particularly since the case was taken off calendar, and the relevant statute does not mandate closure in such circumstances.

Petition for removalSerious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553Mandatory settlement conferenceDiscovery closedTaken off calendarIndustrial injuryIncreased benefitsWCJ orderRescind order
References
0
Case No. ADJ9286921; ADJ9286927
Regular
Jul 31, 2014

MARIA MADRID vs. SF APPAREL, INC., CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY c/o BROOKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding the trial date and vacating the discovery closure. This was due to procedural issues: no pretrial conference statement was filed, and a petition to join a potentially responsible insurance carrier (ICW) was filed late. The Board also found insufficient medical evidence to support awards, vacating the discovery closure to allow for further development. Commissioner Sweeney concurred with vacating the trial date but dissented on allowing further discovery, arguing the defendant lacked diligence.

Petition for RemovalWCJ Order RescindedTrial Date VacatedMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery ClosureDue ProcessDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedPretrial Conference StatementInsurance Company of the WestPetition for Joinder
References
0
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. ADJ11292762 ADJ11292764 ADJ12720128
Regular
Feb 07, 2020

LETICIA GARCIA vs. CKE RESTAURANTS HOLDINGS, INC./TRAVELERS, ARM MANAGEMENT, INC./STATE FARM

Defendants petitioned for removal, arguing the WCJ improperly took the case off calendar after the applicant filed a new application for the same injury, which they claim was a tactic to reopen discovery past the mandatory settlement conference closure. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the matter to the trial level. The Board will determine if the new application is duplicative and, if so, it should be dismissed, with potential sanctions considered. This ensures discovery closure rules are not circumvented.

Petition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderDuplicative ApplicationReopening DiscoveryDiscovery ClosureMandatory Settlement ConferenceLabor Code Section 5502WCAB JurisdictionInoperative Statute of LimitationsSanction
References
4
Case No. ADJ1649220
Regular
Aug 19, 2009

ERIC LUND vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY (STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND) LAKEPORT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (FASIS), CLEARLAKE OAKS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (FASIS)

This case involves a firefighter claiming industrial injury to his jaw and tonsil cancer, with the initial finding supporting the presumption of injury. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing that the WCJ improperly relied on medical opinions obtained after discovery closure and in violation of physician selection procedures. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the initial findings, and returned the matter for further proceedings due to procedural errors in admitting key medical evidence. The Board emphasized that evidence obtained after discovery closure and potentially exceeding applicant's rights under Labor Code section 4062.1(e) should not have been admitted.

Labor Code section 3212.1squamous cell carcinomatonsil cancerlymph node cancerfirefighter injurycumulative injurypresumption of injuryrebutted presumptionLabor Code section 4062.1panel QME
References
3
Case No. ADJ7680003
Regular
Aug 20, 2018

VALERIE CROOK vs. SANTA YNEZ VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN PRESCHOOL, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal challenging discovery closure orders issued by a workers' compensation judge (WCJ). The defendant argued that closing discovery prematurely would cause significant prejudice. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the removal, finding the WCJ erred in believing a peremptory challenge to their role prevented them from issuing discovery orders. The WCAB amended the original orders to allow the originally permitted discovery while otherwise affirming the WCJ's decisions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPre-Trial Conference StatementDiscoveryVocational EvaluationQualified Medical EvaluatorSupplemental ReportPre-emptory ChallengeMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJ Authority
References
4
Case No. ADJ845033 (VNO 0407336) ADJ1911914 (VNO 0412063) ADJ1461680 (VNO 0338656) ADJ2866384 (VNO 0338654) ADJ451885 (MON 0224886) ADJ1364506 (VNO 0407335) ADJ2640142 (VNO 0407334) ADJ1480083 (MON 0264343)
Regular
Apr 04, 2012

DONALD RENETZKY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal concerning potential discovery closure under Labor Code section 5502(e)(3). The defendant argues prejudice due to unresolved discovery issues related to applicant's home health care services claim, particularly regarding an increase in prescribed hours. The Appeals Board granted removal, deeming the prior conference a status/discovery conference. This allows for completion of discovery to facilitate a just resolution and prevent prejudice to the defendant.

Petition for RemovalDiscovery ClosureLabor Code Section 5502(e)(3)Pretrial Conference StatementMandatory Settlement ConferenceHome Health Care ServicesAgreed Medical ExaminerTreating PhysicianHome Health Care EvaluatorDeposition
References
1
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,238 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