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

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
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. ADJ850295 (GRO 0035125)
Regular
May 24, 2010

Corey Abel vs. BEST BUY COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Best Buy's petition for removal, rescinding the administrative law judge's order closing discovery and setting trial. Defendant Best Buy argued the judge erred by closing discovery before a crucial deposition of the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), Dr. Strait, which was scheduled to clarify inconsistencies and permanent disability opinions. The Board found the deposition necessary for a complete record and to facilitate a fair decision or potential settlement. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including completion of the AME's deposition.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorDepositionClosing DiscoveryRescind OrderLumbar Spine InjuryStock ClerkPermanent DisabilityWhole Person ImpairmentUnorthodox Basis
References
0
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. ADJ1472209 (OAK 0316991)
Regular
May 03, 2010

ALEJANDRO AMEZCUA vs. HENDRICKSEN, THE CARE OF TREES, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal to reconsider the denial of their motion for further discovery. The Board found that the applicant's actions, including filing a Declaration of Readiness and agreeing to a settlement, led the defendant to discontinue discovery, believing a settlement was imminent. To prevent significant prejudice to the defendant and ensure a just resolution, the Board rescinded the discovery denial and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. This allows the defendant to complete discovery if settlement is not reached.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceStatus ConferenceFurther DiscoveryOgilvieLeBoeufDeclaration of ReadinessSettlement AgreementCompromise and ReleaseUnverified Petition
References
2
Case No. ADJ845033 (VNO 0407336) ADJ1911914 (VNO 0412063) ADJ1461680 (VNO 0338656) ADJ2866384 (VNO 0338654) ADJ451885 (MON 0224886) ADJ1364506 (VNO 0407335) ADJ2640142 (VNO 0407334) ADJ1480083 (MON 0264343)
Regular
Apr 04, 2012

DONALD RENETZKY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal concerning potential discovery closure under Labor Code section 5502(e)(3). The defendant argues prejudice due to unresolved discovery issues related to applicant's home health care services claim, particularly regarding an increase in prescribed hours. The Appeals Board granted removal, deeming the prior conference a status/discovery conference. This allows for completion of discovery to facilitate a just resolution and prevent prejudice to the defendant.

Petition for RemovalDiscovery ClosureLabor Code Section 5502(e)(3)Pretrial Conference StatementMandatory Settlement ConferenceHome Health Care ServicesAgreed Medical ExaminerTreating PhysicianHome Health Care EvaluatorDeposition
References
1
Case No. ADJ6656180
Regular
Aug 24, 2009

LEONARD REASON vs. MCNEAR BRICK & BLOCK, CIGA for CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION, in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition for removal, reversing a prior WCJ order that denied CIGA's objection to the applicant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed. The Board found that the WCJ erred by preventing CIGA from conducting discovery and obtaining a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) exam, despite the applicant filing his claim nearly eleven years after the alleged injury. The Board emphasized that CIGA has a right to discovery, even after denying a claim, and that any potential violation of administrative rules does not automatically waive these discovery rights. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings, allowing CIGA the opportunity to complete its discovery.

CIGAPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedObjection to Declaration of ReadinessDue ProcessDiscovery RightsRescinded OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial Injury
References
0
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. ADJ9163407
Regular
May 01, 2015

Anthony Barbas vs. MacMurray Pacific, Farmers Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied applicant Anthony Barbas' petition for removal of an order closing discovery, despite his argument that it would cause prejudice by preventing a full vocational expert report. The majority adopted the WCJ's report, denying the petition and allowing the case to proceed to trial without further discovery. However, one commissioner dissented, arguing for removal to allow the applicant to complete vocational expert discovery and set a conference instead of a trial.

Petition for RemovalVocational ExpertDiminished Future Earning CapacityDiscovery ClosureSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ ReportDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed
References
1
Case No. ADJ8162471
Regular
Oct 10, 2013

Brenda Jackson vs. Pitney Bowes, Inc., Sedgwick

In *Jackson v. Pitney Bowes, Inc.*, the employer successfully petitioned for removal, seeking to rescind an order that kept the case off calendar for an Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) deposition. The Appeals Board found that discovery should have closed at the mandatory settlement conference (MSC) pursuant to Labor Code section 5502(d)(3). Since the applicant failed to demonstrate due diligence in completing discovery prior to the MSC, the Board granted removal, closed discovery as of July 23, 2013, and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)Order Off CalendarAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)DepositionLabor Code Section 5502(d)Discovery ClosureDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR)Untimely ObjectionDue Diligence
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,831 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