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
Nov 03, 1967

Holloway v. Board of Examiners

The petitioner, a school social worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to compel the respondent to provide copies of medical and other reports that led to an unsatisfactory rating in an examination for a Supervisor of School Social Workers license. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially dismissed the petition. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, granting the petition to the extent of directing the respondent to furnish the reports to a physician designated by the petitioner, rather than directly to the petitioner. The case was remanded to the Special Term for further proceedings, including a determination on allowing the petitioner more time to appeal the unsatisfactory rating.

Article 78 CPLRLicense ExaminationSchool Social WorkerMedical ReportsDisclosureAdministrative AppealUnsatisfactory RatingAppellate ReversalRemandPhysician Disclosure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Brian VV. v. Chenango Forks Central School District

Petitioners filed a notice of claim after their six-year-old daughter was allegedly sexually assaulted on a school bus. The respondent, a school district, subsequently served a notice to orally examine the infant and petitioners. While petitioners submitted to examination, they refused to produce their child. The Supreme Court initially granted petitioners’ motion to strike the notice to examine the infant, deeming prior informal interviews with the child as substantial compliance. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing that General Municipal Law § 50-h mandates a pre-action examination as a condition precedent. The court ruled that the prior interviews did not fulfill the statutory purpose and that the child's submission to an examination is required. Due to the child's young age, the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court to conduct a hearing to determine the child's competency to testify under oath before the examination takes place.

General Municipal Law § 50-hEducation Law § 3813Infant examinationSexual assault claimCondition precedentAppellate procedureCompetency hearingSchool district liabilityPre-action discoveryOath requirement
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crawford v. Ehrlich

The court reversed an order denying a motion to vacate a notice of examination before trial, subsequently granting the motion. The examination sought information regarding $2,700 in U.S. Bonds and a $1,000 insurance policy, both payable or assigned to the executrix individually. The court found that the objectant had no legal interest in these assets as they were payable to a stated beneficiary and individually assigned to the executrix. Furthermore, the objectant was not a creditor, precluding examination under the Debtor and Creditor Law. Therefore, it was deemed an improvident exercise of discretion to permit the examination given the objectant's lack of a possible legal interest.

Motion to vacateNotice of examination before trialU.S. Bonds Series EInsurance policyDecedent's estateExecutrixObjectantDebtor and Creditor LawLegal interestDiscretionary power
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Radigan v. Radigan

This matrimonial action involves an appeal from an order denying a motion for a psychiatric examination. Both parties seek custody of their 15-year-old son. An initial evaluation by a social worker, based only on interviews, recommended custody to the plaintiff wife. The defendant husband moved for a psychiatric examination citing the superficiality of the social worker's report and concerns about his son's mental health. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granting the motion to the extent that the plaintiff, their son, and the defendant must all undergo examination by a court-appointed psychiatrist, with costs borne by the defendant.

Matrimonial LawCustody DisputePsychiatric ExaminationAppellate ReviewCPLR 3121Mental Health EvaluationFamily ServicesAlcoholismChild CounselingCourt-Appointed Expert
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burger v. Bladt

The infant plaintiff suffered personal injuries resulting in serious learning disabilities and neurological problems following a collision. The defendant moved to compel additional medical examinations by a psychologist, psychiatrist, and a teacher of the neurologically handicapped, as well as a parent intake evaluation by a psychiatric social worker, after the plaintiffs refused to submit to more than a single examination. The Supreme Court partially denied this motion, deeming it overly burdensome. On appeal, the order was modified to grant the defendant's request for an examination by Annella Stevens, a teacher of the neurologically handicapped, and an interview by a psychiatric social worker to obtain the child's developmental history, affirming the order as modified.

Personal InjuryMedical ExaminationDiscoveryAppellate ProcedureInfant PlaintiffNeurological ProblemsLearning DisabilitiesSupreme CourtPre-Trial DiscoveryCourt Order Modification
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1994

People v. France

This is a combined decision addressing motions to vacate homicide convictions in six separate cases. The defendants argued that the prosecutor failed to disclose dictation audiotapes made by the New York City Medical Examiner, which they claimed constituted 'Rosario' material. The court denied the motions, ruling that the Medical Examiner's Office is an independent agency, and therefore, the audiotapes were not under the control of the District Attorney and not 'Rosario' material. The decision further clarifies that CPL article 240 provides for pretrial discovery of written reports but not dictation tapes, unless they contain exculpatory material. The court emphasized the Medical Examiner's role as an independent expert, distinct from 'event' or law enforcement witnesses, and concluded that their dictation tapes are not 'statements' within the 'Rosario' jurisprudence.

Rosario materialDiscovery rulesCPL 440.10 motionHomicide convictionMedical Examiner audiotapeAutopsy reportProsecutorial dutyDuplicative equivalentIndependent agencyCPL Article 240
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Grief Bros.

This employment discrimination case, filed July 1, 2002, involves Michael Sabo (Plaintiff) who alleges constructive discharge based on sexual harassment and claims severe emotional pain and suffering. The Defendant moved for a mental examination of Sabo under Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 and to compel the production of his medical records. Sabo alleged severe humiliation, anxiety, depression, loss of self-esteem, sleeplessness, and weight gain, and admitted to a history of depression, past suicide attempts, and current psychiatric treatment with prescribed medications. The court granted the Defendant's motions, finding that Sabo had placed his mental condition in controversy due to the nature and severity of his claims and his medical history, justifying both the examination and the production of relevant medical records. The court also granted Defendant's request for costs associated with compelling the medical records, but denied the request for costs related to the Rule 35 motion itself, and denied Plaintiff's request for counsel or recording during the examination.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeEmotional DistressMental ExaminationRule 35Medical RecordsDepressionSuicide AttemptsCompensatory Damages
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2005

Sassower-Berlin v. Berlin

This case details an appeal by the Law Guardian for the children and the father from a Family Court order in Nassau County, entered December 12, 2005. The underlying proceeding aimed to modify a 2001 divorce judgment that had terminated the mother’s visitation rights. Appellants sought to vacate orders directing forensic examinations of the father and children, and to summarily dismiss the modification proceeding. The appellate court dismissed the appeal concerning one child as academic. It found the order for the father's examination erroneous but affirmed the discretion to order children's evaluations. However, in exercising its own discretion, the court granted the motion to vacate the forensic examinations for the minor children due to their opposition and prior trauma. The court denied the motion to summarily dismiss the mother's petition, allowing it to proceed to a hearing.

Child visitationDivorce judgment modificationForensic examinationsMental health evaluationAppellate reviewFamily Court ActChildren's welfareJudicial discretionLaw GuardianChildren's wishes
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yonkers New System Laundry, Inc. v. Simon

This case involves an action where the plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain defendants from picketing in a labor dispute and from violating negative restrictive covenants in employment contracts. The court modified an order concerning the examination before trial of individual defendants. The modified order specified subjects of inquiry including the execution of employment contracts, the defendants' conduct in sharing confidential customer information with competitors, soliciting plaintiff's customers while still employed, and colluding with competitors' drivers. The appellate court affirmed the modified order without costs, allowing the plaintiff to seek further examination if the complaint is amended to cure a defect. The decision emphasized limiting the examination to the properly stated matters in light of the Special Term's construction of the complaint.

Labor DisputeInjunctionRestrictive CovenantsEmployment ContractsTrade SecretsCustomer ListsPicketingExamination Before TrialAppellate ReviewConfidential Information
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graham v. Wilson

The order granting the plaintiff's motion for a further examination before trial was affirmed. The examination is to proceed on five days’ notice, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Justices Lazansky, Young, Hagarty, Carswell, and Davis concurred with the decision.

Motion GrantedExamination Before TrialAppellate AffirmationJudicial ConcurrenceCivil ProcedureCosts and DisbursementsPanel Decision
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,708 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