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

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoffmann v. S.J. Hawk, Inc.

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

1-21 v. County of Suffolk

This case arises from allegations that the County of Suffolk and Suffolk County Police Department subjected Latino individuals to discriminatory policing, including illegal traffic stops, unjustified checkpoints, and 'stop and rob' schemes. The plaintiffs, referred to as 'Plaintiffs #1-21,' filed a motion to proceed anonymously, citing fears of retaliation and deportation. The court granted this motion, acknowledging the serious nature of the allegations, particularly against Defendant Scott Greene, who is also facing criminal charges related to the 'stop and rob' scheme. Additionally, the court ordered a stay of discovery solely with respect to Defendant Greene, balancing his Fifth Amendment rights against the plaintiffs' interest in an expeditious resolution. Discovery is permitted to proceed against other defendants, and a protective order for limited disclosure of plaintiffs' identities will be submitted.

Discriminatory policingRacial profilingFourth Amendment rights violationFifth Amendment rights violationFourteenth Amendment rights violation42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims42 U.S.C. § 2000d claimsAnonymous plaintiffsStay of proceedingsSelf-incrimination
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hualde v. Otis Elevator Co.

This case involves an appeal regarding a discovery dispute in an elevator negligence case. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied portions of the defendant's motion for a protective order and limited the plaintiff's demand for elevator maintenance records. The appellate court modified this order, granting further relief to the defendant by limiting specific discovery items requested by the plaintiff, such as statements made by the plaintiff and hospital records, and striking other broad requests. The court also affirmed the lower court's decision regarding the plaintiff's bill of particulars and the limitation of subsequent repair records and records for other elevators, citing prematurity and inadmissibility of subsequent repairs in negligence cases. The appellate court noted that plaintiff had consented to confidentiality for defendant's trade secrets. Overall, the decision aimed to narrow the scope of discovery.

Discovery disputeProtective orderElevator maintenance recordsNegligence caseAppellate reviewInformation limitationBill of particularsSubsequent repairs admissibilityConfidentiality agreementCivil procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2013

Scholastic Inc. v. Pace Plumbing Corp.

Plaintiff, Scholastic Inc., suffered over $1.5 million in water damage in 2006 due to a broken Victaulic coupling in its Manhattan building, installed by defendant Pace Plumbing Corp. Scholastic's insurer, subrogated to its rights, sued Pace in 2008 for negligence and breach of contract. Pace's answer included a single paragraph listing 16 boilerplate affirmative defenses, including the statute of limitations, without separate numbering. The motion court deemed the statute of limitations defense inadequately pleaded but granted summary judgment to Pace on the merits. The appellate court reversed, holding that Pace's statute of limitations defense was indeed inadequately pleaded and prejudiced Scholastic by hindering targeted discovery. The case was remanded to allow Pace to amend its pleading and Scholastic to conduct discovery on the statute of limitations issue, specifically the completion date of Pace's work. The court also raised questions regarding the universal applicability of prior precedent on pleading particularity compared to Official Form 17.

Pleading RequirementsAffirmative DefenseStatute of LimitationsCPLRPrejudiceDiscoverySummary JudgmentRemandAppellate ReviewBoilerplate Defenses
References
26
Case No. ADJ9750218
Regular
Oct 07, 2015

RAMIRO LOPEZ vs. PENTERMAN FARMING COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, upholding a WCJ's order limiting discovery of medical records to the applicant's musculoskeletal system. The defendant argued this limitation denied due process and prejudiced their defense, but the Board found that the applicant only waives physician-patient privilege for conditions put in issue by the claim. Discovery beyond the claimed injury must be demonstrably relevant and justified by specific information, which the defendant failed to establish. The Board concluded the WCJ's order appropriately balanced the applicant's privacy with the defendant's discovery needs.

Petition for RemovalSubpoenas Duces TecumOrder Limiting SubpoenasMusculoskeletal SystemDue ProcessMotion to QuashDeclaration of ReadinessPatient-Litigant ExceptionPhysician-Patient PrivilegeScope of Discovery
References
6
Case No. ADJ10488034
Regular
May 07, 2018

GILDO BEITIA vs. CITY OF OAKLAND

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a petition for removal, upholding an administrative law judge's order that limited the defendant's subpoenas for medical records. The defendant argued this order denied due process and improperly restricted discovery into non-industrial conditions affecting the applicant's alleged injuries. The WCAB found the subpoenas were impermissibly overbroad under existing precedent, which limits discovery to matters directly relevant to the claimed injuries. A dissenting opinion argued the limitations were too restrictive, especially for conditions like weight gain and hypertension which can have numerous causes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashCompensable Consequence InjuriesDiscovery LimitationsPatient-Litigant ExceptionPhysician-Patient PrivilegeOverbroad SubpoenaDue Process
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 1996

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Donjon Marine Co.

The Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund (SIF) sued Donjon Marine Co., Inc. for unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums. Donjon claimed the policy was cancelled effective October 28, 1991, based on an informational letter from the Workers' Compensation Board. The lower court granted partial summary judgment to Donjon and limited SIF's discovery. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that the informational letter was not a valid notice of cancellation from SIF and did not meet the strict statutory requirements of Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5). Consequently, Donjon failed to make a prima facie showing of cancellation, and the limitations on discovery were vacated, with Donjon's answer to be stricken if discovery demands are not met.

Insurance PremiumsWorkers' Compensation PolicyPolicy CancellationSummary JudgmentDiscovery DemandsStatutory ComplianceNotice RequirementsPrima Facie ShowingAppellate ReviewSupreme Court Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 1994

Johansen v. Honeywell, Inc.

This is a master decision by Justice Stephen G. Crane concerning 113 motions to dismiss product liability claims based on the statute of limitations. The court heavily relies on the precedent set in Wallen v American Tel. & Tel. Co., affirming that the three-year limitation period under CPLR 214 begins to run from the date of first injury or onset of symptoms, rather than the discovery of its cause or the last use of the product. The decision explicitly rejects arguments for delayed discovery under CPLR 214-c and theories of continuing injury or failure to warn. As a result, the court granted motions to dismiss product liability claims against IBM by Alice F. Johansen and William Johansen, and against Amtote International Inc. and General Instrument Corporation by Nancy Avelenda, deeming them barred by the statute of limitations.

product liabilitystatute of limitationsaccrual datedelayed discoverycarpal tunnel syndrometendonitiscontinuing wrong theoryfailure to warnCPLR 214CPLR 214-c
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,949 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