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. 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

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. 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

Turner v. Montgomery

Relator Cheryl Turner sought a writ of mandamus to compel Judge John Montgomery to grant discovery in her divorce case, aiming to value her community property interest in her husband, Sylvester Turner's, law firm, Barnes and Turner. Judge Montgomery had denied the discovery requests, citing attorney-client privilege based on the Enos v. Baker precedent. However, the appellate court determined that Sylvester Turner failed to preserve his claim of privilege by not offering evidence or requesting an in camera inspection of the documents. The court also noted that many of the requested documents were not 'unquestionably privileged' and that the judge had improperly denied requests on un-urged grounds. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ordering Judge Montgomery to vacate his original discovery order.

MandamusDiscoveryAttorney-Client PrivilegeDivorceCommunity PropertyLaw Firm ValuationAbuse of DiscretionWaiver of PrivilegeIn Camera InspectionTexas Rules of Civil Procedure
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cupples Products Co. v. Marshall

Diana Wright filed a gross negligence claim against Cupples Products, her husband’s employer, after his death, subsequent to settling a workers’ compensation claim with Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Cupples’ insurer. Wright sought discovery from Liberty Mutual, requesting statements, reports, photographs, diagrams, sketches, and accident/inspection reports related to her husband's accident. The trial court, presided over by Judge John McClellan Marshall, ordered the production of these documents for an in camera inspection. Cupples Products and Liberty Mutual, as relators, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, contending that the documents were exempt from discovery under TEX.R.CIV.P. 166b(3)(b) and (d), arguing they were privileged communications made in connection with the investigation of the occurrence. The appellate court agreed with the relators, holding that any investigation by an agent of a party, made subsequent to the occurrence out of which the claim has arisen, is privileged and exempt from discovery, even if it was initially for a different claim (workers' compensation). The court conditionally granted the petition for the writ of mandamus, expecting the trial judge to vacate the discovery orders.

Discovery DisputeMandamusPrivileged CommunicationsWork Product DoctrineGross NegligenceWorkers' CompensationInsurance InvestigationTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureIn Camera InspectionWitness Statements
References
1
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03327 [205 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

Newman v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., Inc.

Plaintiff Aja Newman appealed two orders related to discovery in her lawsuit against Mount Sinai for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, stemming from sexual assaults committed by defendant Dr. David Newman on her and three other patients. The Supreme Court had denied Newman's motions to compel discovery regarding the identities of the other patients and hospital workers, and granted Mount Sinai's cross-motion for a protective order, citing quality assurance and HIPAA privileges. The Appellate Division reversed both orders, ruling that Mount Sinai failed to prove entitlement to the quality assurance privilege for all requested documents and that the doctor-patient privilege does not cover incidents of abuse. The court also clarified that HIPAA regulations allow for disclosure subject to a qualified protective order. The Appellate Division granted Newman's motions, directing Mount Sinai to disclose patient identities under a protective order, provide identities of Newman's coworkers, produce party statements from ordinary business records, and prepare a privilege log for quality assurance materials for in camera review, remanding the matter for further proceedings.

Discovery DisputeNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionQuality Assurance PrivilegeHIPAADoctor-Patient PrivilegeSexual AssaultPatient ConfidentialityProtective OrderPrivilege Log
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital v. Sullivan

This case addresses a plaintiff's challenge to the defendant Secretary's Medicare reimbursement determination for 1976-1981, made through Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery for six documents and sought access to a large Medicare patient data base for statistical analysis. The defendant invoked the predecisional/deliberative process privilege for the documents and argued irrelevance and Privacy Act protections against data base disclosure. The court granted discovery for one document (27) and the data base, finding it relevant to challenges to the regulations 'as applied' and their contravention of Congressional intent. However, discovery was denied for other documents based on valid claims of deliberative process privilege, with one denial having leave to renew.

Medicare reimbursementdiscovery disputedeliberative process privilegePrivacy Actagency regulationshealth care financingadministrative lawpredecisional documentsdata accessfederal court
References
15
Case No. 08-18-00088-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2018

in Re: WHC, LLC D/B/A Woodson, Hughes & Crain, Inc., A/K/A WHC Energy Services

WHC, LLC filed a mandamus petition against Judge Sergio Enriquez, challenging an order to disclose documents asserted to be protected by attorney-client privilege. The dispute arose from an underlying worker's compensation claim and wrongful termination suit filed by Omar Sanchez against WHC. Sanchez sought discovery of communications from WHC's insurance carrier, which the trial court compelled despite WHC's claims of privilege. After reviewing the documents in camera, the Court of Appeals determined that WHC successfully demonstrated both attorney-client and work-product privileges applied. Consequently, the appellate court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the disclosure and conditionally granted mandamus relief, directing the trial court to vacate its discovery order.

MandamusAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product DoctrineDiscovery DisputeAbuse of DiscretionWorker's Compensation ClaimWrongful Termination SuitIn Camera ReviewLegal PrivilegeTrial Court Order
References
16
Case No. 3-92-522-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 1993

Lane Denton v. Texas Department of Public Safety Officers Association

Appellant Lane Denton sued the Texas Department of Public Safety Officers Association (DPSOA) and others for wrongful termination and various torts after his employment as Executive Director was terminated. Denton invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during discovery, as he was also under criminal indictment for misappropriation of DPSOA funds. The district court dismissed his civil suit for failure to comply with discovery. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court erred in dismissing the cause without applying the Republic Insurance Co. v. Davis test for offensive-use waiver of privilege, and also found the dismissal to be an excessive sanction given Denton's legitimate assertion of his constitutional privilege and the availability of less burdensome remedies like abatement.

Fifth Amendment privilegeSelf-incriminationDiscovery sanctionsAbatement of civil actionWrongful terminationDue processOffensive use waiverTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 215Appellate reviewCivil procedure
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cherokee Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Khoury

The case involves Relator Cherokee Steel Fabricators, Inc. seeking a mandamus to vacate a trial court's order compelling discovery of documents related to a fatal accident. Three types of documents were at issue: an adjustor's report, a consulting engineer's report, and witness statements. Cherokee claimed these documents were privileged under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 166b(3)(b), (c), and (d), arguing they were prepared in anticipation of litigation. The court found that witness statements were explicitly exempt from discovery. It further determined that the adjustor's report and the consulting engineer's report were privileged, as there was good cause to believe a lawsuit would be filed against Cherokee given the severe consequences and the unusual nature of the investigation. The court conditionally granted the mandamus, ordering the respondent to vacate the discovery order.

Discovery DisputeMandamus ProceedingWork Product DoctrineAttorney-Client PrivilegeAnticipation of LitigationAccident InvestigationInsurance ClaimsTexas Civil ProcedurePrivilege ClaimWitness Statements
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,910 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