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. 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. 03-09-00280-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2010

Juneth Steubing v. City of Killeen, Texas

The Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, as relator, petitioned for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court's order that allowed three individual accountants to conduct discovery in their suits for judicial review of the Board's disciplinary decisions. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, conditionally granted the mandamus. The court held that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not provide for the application of general discovery procedures to the judicial review of administrative proceedings. It emphasized that discovery is conducted at the agency level, which is considered the trial level, and appellate review is largely limited to the record developed there. While a district court may receive evidence of procedural irregularities, this does not authorize a new round of discovery. Allowing such discovery would contradict the APA's limitations on the standard and scope of judicial review.

MandamusAdministrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewDiscoveryAgency ProceedingsProtective OrderProcedural IrregularitiesSovereign ImmunityStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of Appeals
References
8
Case No. 03-09-00280-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2010

in Re Texas State Board of Public Accountancy

The Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, as relator, sought a writ of mandamus to challenge a district court's order that allowed discovery in judicial review suits initiated by three individual accountants. The core legal question was whether general discovery procedures, typically used at the agency (trial) level, are permissible during judicial review of administrative decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court determined that while the APA allows for the introduction of evidence concerning procedural irregularities not reflected in the agency record, it does not authorize a second round of discovery at the district court level. Allowing such discovery would contradict the APA's limitations on the scope of judicial review and its waiver of governmental immunity. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ruling that the district court erred by denying the Board's motion for a protective order and permitting discovery.

Texas Court of AppealsMandamusAdministrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewDiscovery LimitationsAgency AdjudicationProtective OrderGovernmental ImmunityStatutory InterpretationAppellate Procedure
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. 03-09-00280-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2009

Justin Ryan McCarthy v. State

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, conditionally granted a petition for writ of mandamus filed by the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy. The Board challenged a trial court's order allowing discovery in judicial review suits initiated by three individual accountants concerning the Board's disciplinary decisions. The appellate court held that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not authorize the use of general discovery rules in judicial review proceedings, even when procedural irregularities are alleged. The court reasoned that while the APA provides for discovery at the agency level, it deliberately omits such provisions for judicial review, thereby limiting the scope of review to the agency record except for evidence of procedural irregularities.

Judicial ReviewAdministrative LawMandamusDiscoveryTexas Government CodeAdministrative Procedure ActState AgenciesStatutory InterpretationProcedural IrregularitiesCourt of Appeals
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bennett v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America

In this ERISA action, the plaintiff sought review of the defendant's termination of long-term disability benefits and filed a motion to compel discovery regarding alleged conflicts of interest, bias, and procedural irregularities. The defendant, Unum Life Insurance Co. and UnumProvident Corporation, countered with a motion for a protective order. Citing Sixth Circuit precedent, the court found that limited discovery outside the administrative record is permissible when a claimant identifies specific procedural challenges and provides a reasonable evidentiary basis. The plaintiff demonstrated such a basis through testimony from former employees and internal corporate documents hinting at policies to deny claims for financial reasons. Therefore, the court partially granted the plaintiff's motion to compel for specific discovery requests and partially denied the defendant's motion for a protective order, allowing for circumscribed discovery into these allegations.

ERISA BenefitsLong Term DisabilityDiscovery RulesConflict of InterestProcedural Due ProcessArbitrary and Capricious StandardAdministrative RecordMedical Advisor TestimonyClaims Handling PracticesInsurance Company Policies
References
21
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. ADJ10939613, ADJ11371215
Regular
Jan 22, 2019

BRIAN COLLINS vs. CITY OF VACAVILLE, INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding an order that quashed subpoenas for an applicant's former employer personnel and medical records. The Board found that Evidence Code sections 1043-1046, which govern discovery of police personnel records, are not applicable to routine workers' compensation discovery. Filing a workers' compensation claim places the applicant's medical condition at issue, making these records essential for the defense. Therefore, requiring strict adherence to the *Pitchess* procedure would be an absurd procedural hurdle in this context.

Workers' CompensationPetition for RemovalQuashed SubpoenasPolice Officer Personnel RecordsEvidence Code Sections 1043-1046Penal Code Sections 832.7-832.8Pitchess MotionRoutine DiscoveryMedical RecordsPersonnel Records
References
5
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2009

Beach v. Healthways, Inc.

This order addresses a motion to intervene by the Central Laborers’ Pension Fund (CLPF) and the defendants’ motion to stay discovery. Magistrate Judge Juliet Griffin denied the defendants' motion to stay, reasoning that despite potential unnecessary discovery, the existing discovery timelines did not permit bifurcation or phasing of discovery. The court granted CLPF’s motion to intervene as a named plaintiff, finding it met all requirements under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Key factors for intervention included timeliness, a substantial economic interest in the litigation, the potential impairment of CLPF's interest without intervention, and the inadequacy of representation by existing individual plaintiffs for a class of institutional investors. The order also noted that parties resolved proposed modifications to the discovery plan.

Securities LitigationClass ActionMotion to InterveneMotion to Stay DiscoveryFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2)Private Securities Litigation Reform ActInstitutional InvestorPension FundAdequacy of RepresentationTimeliness of Motion
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 4,812 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