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. ADJ7071120
Regular
Jul 07, 2010

CARRIE JOHNSON vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

Defendant Federal Express sought removal of an order allowing applicant further discovery beyond the mandatory settlement conference (MSC). The Appeals Board granted removal, finding the applicant lacked due diligence in pursuing discovery before the MSC. Applicant's failure to object to the defendant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed further waived any objections to proceeding on the existing record. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the MSC order and returned the case to the trial level with discovery closed.

Petition for removalMandatory settlement conferenceOrder off calendarDue diligenceQualified Medical EvaluatorDiscovery closureDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedWaiver of objectionsPermanent disabilityIndustrial injury
References
1
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. ADJ7622132
Regular
May 10, 2011

MARIA SOLORIO DE VILLA vs. RADISSON PLAZA dba LA QUINTA, COMP WEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal. The Board ordered the Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) off calendar to allow for the deposition of the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The applicant had previously objected to the defendant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed due to outstanding discovery. The Board found that scheduling the MSC over the applicant's objection was improper given the incomplete discovery.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorQME DepositionDiscovery ObjectionsOff CalendarJudicial EconomyFairnessElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
0
Case No. ADJ7620210
Regular
Feb 02, 2012

MATTHEW BROWN vs. PENINSULA PONTIAC AUTOMOBILE, AM TRUST NORTH AMERICA, MAJESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant insurance company sought removal of an order setting a workers' compensation case for trial, arguing insufficient discovery. The Board denied the petition, finding the defendant waived objections by failing to object to two prior Declarations of Readiness. The Board also noted the defendant's lack of diligence in obtaining requested discovery and the absence of extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay. The order allowing the trial judge discretion for limited medical evidence was upheld.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical ExaminerDiscoveryMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of ReadinessObjectionTrialDepositionTemporary Total DisabilityDue Diligence
References
7
Case No. ADJ8944782
Regular
Sep 24, 2015

MARLYN HERNANDEZ vs. PINK HOUSE IMPORTS, LLC, PROCENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

Citywide Scanning Service, Inc. sought reconsideration of discovery orders denying its objections, but the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed its petition. The Board found that the orders were interlocutory and thus not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, Citywide, not being a party to the underlying case and not demonstrating lien claimant status, lacked standing to object or file the petition. The Board clarified that the proper procedure for contesting interlocutory discovery orders is a petition for removal, but only parties aggrieved may file it.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumStandingFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderDiscovery MattersLien ClaimantWCAB Rule 10843Petition for Removal
References
8
Case No. ADJ8501384
Regular
Dec 30, 2014

ARTEMIO VASQUEZ vs. INTEGRAL SENIOR LIVING, HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the applicant, Artemio Vasquez, against Integral Senior Living and Helmsman Management Services. The applicant sought removal due to incomplete discovery, specifically concerning a neurologist, internist, and sleep study, and alleged prejudice from proceeding to trial. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's report. The Board found the objection untimely, noted the applicant's failure to object to the Declaration of Readiness or diligently pursue discovery, and concluded that any issues with the PQME report could be addressed by the trial judge or via post-trial remedies, thus not causing irreparable harm.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscoveryPrejudiceIrreparable HarmPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerAOE/COE
References
0
Case No. ADJ14242832
Regular
Mar 07, 2025

EHAB GUIRGUIS vs. CIRCLE K/76 GAS STATION, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

Defendant sought removal of an Order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) setting the matter for trial. Defendant objected to applicant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR) as defective due to a failure to list good faith efforts for resolution and incomplete discovery regarding a vocational rehabilitation report. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition, the applicant's answer, and the WCJ's report. The WCAB granted the Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the matter for further proceedings to allow for proper development of the record and address the defendant's objections to the DOR and discovery issues, emphasizing the right to due process and a fair hearing.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedWCJ ObjectionGood Faith EffortsDiscoveryVocational Rehabilitation ReportDue ProcessFair HearingRescind OrderReturn to Trial Level
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

In re Marsh Erisa Litigation

Named Plaintiffs Donald Hundley, Conrad Simon, and Leticia Hernandez brought a class action lawsuit against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA related to imprudent investments in MMC stock within the company's 401(k) plan. The litigation, complex in scope and involving extensive discovery, ultimately led to a $35 million class action settlement after arm's-length negotiations facilitated by a mediator. The Court approved the settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes, and sanctioned the plan of allocation. Additionally, the decision granted substantial attorneys' fees and expenses to lead counsel, alongside case contribution awards for the named plaintiffs, while rejecting the two objections received. This ruling concludes a significant ERISA litigation, emphasizing the protection of retirement savings for American workers.

ERISAClass ActionSettlement ApprovalFiduciary Duty401(k) PlanStock InvestmentAttorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesClass CertificationPlan of Allocation
References
78
Case No. ADJ915129 (LBO 0385592) ADJ1762218 (LBO 0385591)
Regular
Mar 10, 2011

JUSTA PACHECO vs. BORRELI BEVERLY HILLS, STATE FARM 22860 BAKERSFIELD

The Appeals Board granted a petition for removal, vacating a prior order that allowed broad discovery into a lien claimant's business practices. The Board affirmed jurisdiction over the "corporate practice of medicine" issue, allowing discovery regarding the lien claimant's compliance with the law. However, the Board found the prior order's waiver of objections to discovery was an error and required the defendant to justify each discovery request. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalJoint Findings and OrderLien claimantGarfield Health Center Medical GroupDiscoveryCorporate practice of medicineJurisdictionWaiverSanctions
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 2,645 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