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. 2025 NY Slip Op 05688
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2025

Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v. New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings

Sahara Construction Corp. challenged a determination by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) that upheld civil penalties and a restitution order for violations related to a home improvement project. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed OATH's determination, finding that the imposed civil penalties of $5,000 and restitution of $230,266.63 were not disproportionate and fell within statutory guidelines. The Court also affirmed the denial of the petitioner's motions to dismiss and compel discovery, concluding they were not arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Home Improvement ContractorsCivil PenaltiesRestitution AwardAdministrative Code ViolationsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionSense of FairnessAdministrative Summons
References
7
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jo v. JPMC Specialty Mortg., LLC

Mee Jin-Jo (now deceased and represented by her daughter Billian Jo) filed a pro se lawsuit against JPMC Specialty Mortgage, LLC, alleging improper retention of property after her eviction. Following a jury verdict of "no cause of action," Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court addressed Plaintiff's grievances concerning evidentiary rulings, consistency between in limine rulings and trial decisions, the presence of a corporate representative, proper service of discovery documents, opportunity to review deposition transcripts, judicial conduct, and the admissibility of new evidence and lay opinion testimony. The Court denied the motion, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a new trial was warranted.

Motion for New TrialRule 59 FRCPEvidentiary RulingsJury VerdictHarmless ErrorCorporate RepresentativeDeposition TranscriptLay Opinion TestimonyFederal Rules of EvidenceJudicial Discretion
References
50
Case No. ADJ8809588
Regular
Oct 10, 2013

**SHARON SNOW,** vs. **WEST COAST COSMETIC MEDICAL; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA,**

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal after the trial judge ordered the case to trial and closed discovery. The defendant argues insufficient opportunity to conduct discovery, citing the applicant's cancellation of a deposition due to a perceived discrimination claim that was not formally filed. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding good cause to reopen discovery. The matter is returned to the trial level for a priority conference to ensure complete discovery before proceeding to trial.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedDeposition CancellationLabor Code section 132aDiscovery CompletionIndustrial InjuryPsyche InjuryDigestive System InjuryExilis TechnicianMedical Report
References
0
Case No. ADJ1551358 (LAO 0752000) ADJ3229366 (LAO 0751999)
Regular
Oct 17, 2011

HELEN BROWN vs. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the trial judge's order to take the case off calendar for further discovery. The Board found the trial judge abused his discretion by ordering discovery without determining the current evidence was insufficient and without proper procedural grounds. Discovery was closed, and the applicant failed to show good cause to reopen it. The Board returned the cases to the trial level for a new trial based on the existing evidence.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Off CalendarDiscoverySubstantial EvidenceDevelop the RecordDue ProcessPetition to ReopenMandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)Pretrial Conference Statement
References
2
Case No. ADJ6739458 ADJ6739459
Regular
Nov 05, 2010

MARTA MAYA AFRIAT vs. UNITED AIRLINES, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a WCJ's decision regarding applicant's cumulative trauma claim. Defendant argued it was denied due process as it was not afforded discovery or trial on this claim, having only agreed to submit issues regarding medical evidence discovery and Rule 30. The Board found the WCJ improperly ruled on the cumulative trauma claim's compensability, which was not limited to the agreed-upon discovery issues. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to ensure due process rights are met, including the defendant's right to discovery and trial.

WCABRemovalReconsiderationFindings of FactRulingMedical DiscoveryCompensableCumulative InjuryLabor Code Section 5402Due Process
References
10
Case No. ADJ2785097 (LAO 0781834)
Regular
Aug 23, 2010

TOMAS MOYOTL vs. C&D AEROSPACE, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION by INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICE on behalf of HIH INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation

Defendant C&D Aerospace petitioned for removal after the WCJ set the case for trial without ruling on outstanding discovery disputes. The disputes involve compelling further deposition of the applicant and his wife (a lien claimant for home health care) and requiring the applicant to meet with defendant's home health expert. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the trial setting order, and returned the matter to the trial level for a status conference to resolve discovery issues. This ensures the defendant can obtain necessary discovery before the case proceeds to trial, preventing potential prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalRescind OrderCompel Further DepositionLien ClaimantHome Health CareIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityPre-trial DiscoveryPetition to Compel
References
0
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

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. ADJ7719607
Regular
Jul 27, 2012

STEVE WEDDLE vs. CITY OF PASADENA

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the judge's order to take the case off calendar. The applicant's attorney declared readiness for trial and completed discovery, then unsuccessfully sought to continue the trial to develop the record. The Board found the judge abused discretion by ordering further discovery without trial or evidence submission. The case is returned for trial, with the judge retaining discretion to order record development post-trial if necessary.

Petition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedDiscovery ClosureMedical Record DevelopmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorMcDuffie v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit AuthorityWCJ DiscretionTrial Readiness
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 6,130 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