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

Westbury Medical Care, P.C. v. Lumbermans Mutual Insurance

The plaintiff, a health service provider, sought payment for medical services rendered to assignor Elaine McKeithan after an automobile accident, from the defendant, Lumbermans Mutual Insurance Company. The defendant denied the claim citing non-compliance with fee schedules and concurrent care. The defendant moved for a protective order to prevent the plaintiff from accessing its entire no-fault file, arguing that it contained protected health information under HIPAA. The court partially granted the defendant's motion, ruling that the plaintiff could only access documents specifically related to the alleged concurrent treatment, not the entire file, due to HIPAA's patient privacy regulations and the absence of a valid HIPAA authorization from the claimant. The court emphasized the need to balance full disclosure under CPLR with HIPAA's privacy protections.

No-fault InsuranceHIPAA ComplianceProtective OrderDiscovery DisputesMedical Records DisclosureConcurrent CarePatient PrivacyCPLR Article 31Health Service ProviderInsurance Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2013

Bullard v. Texas Department of Aging & Disability Services

Teresa Bullard, proceeding pro se, filed a lawsuit alleging retaliation, HIPAA, FMLA, and age discrimination against her former employer, the Texas Department of Aging & Disability (DADS), and two individuals, Lance Duckworth and Velvet Archield. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the claims be dismissed with prejudice, finding that the ADEA and FMLA claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, there is no private cause of action under HIPAA, and the retaliation claim lacked sufficient factual allegations. The District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, granting the motion to dismiss and dismissing all claims with prejudice.

Pro SeMotion to DismissEleventh Amendment ImmunityADEA ClaimFMLA ClaimHIPAA ViolationRetaliation ClaimAge DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2012

Liberatore v. Liberatore

The court issued an amended decision and order concerning a child custody dispute within a matrimonial action. The father improperly obtained the notes and records of the child's psychiatrist and clinical psychologist using a HIPAA release, bypassing judicial process. The court ruled that such records, protected by patient/psychotherapist privilege (CPLR 4504, 4507), cannot be disclosed without court order, emphasizing the court's role as parens patriae and the child's best interests. It found that a parent has a conflict of interest in waiving privilege on behalf of a minor child, and that HIPAA does not grant unfettered parental access if state law prohibits it or if a professional deems it not in the child's best interest. Consequently, the court denied access to the records for both parties and their counsel, ordering their return to the providers or destruction by the attorney for the child.

Child CustodyMatrimonial LawPatient-Psychotherapist PrivilegeHIPAAJudicial ProcessParens PatriaeConfidentialityMinor's RightsBest Interests of the ChildTherapy Records
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ames v. Group Health Inc.

Plaintiffs, including trustees John Ames and Michael Pantony of the United Welfare Fund-Welfare Division (UWF) and participant Fred Tremarcke, sued Group Health Incorporated (GHI) under ERISA and HIPAA. They alleged GHI illegally discriminated against Tremarcke by denying his health coverage after he went on disability leave, arguing it violated HIPAA's anti-discrimination provisions and breached the insurance policy. Tremarcke's employer, Classic Chevrolet, continued making health contributions on his behalf, and a 'Side Letter of Understanding' with his union attempted to maintain his 'active employee' status. The court ultimately ruled in favor of GHI, finding that Tremarcke did not meet the eligibility requirements of the UWF-GHI plan, which required working over 20 hours per week, and that the 'Side Letter' could not unilaterally alter GHI's contractual obligations. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment was granted, dismissing the second and third causes of action.

ERISAHIPAACOBRAHealth InsuranceDisability BenefitsSummary JudgmentFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractMulti-employer FundCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
6
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. ADJ10091615
Regular
Oct 20, 2016

Joan De Silva vs. Mission Hospital, SEDGWICK 14442 ORANGE

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Mission Hospital's Petition for Removal, rescinding an order that denied their motion to quash two subpoenas. The Board found the subpoenas overbroad and potentially sought documents protected by Evidence Code section 1157 (hospital peer review) and HIPAA (confidential patient information). Furthermore, the Board determined the subpoenas lacked sufficient specificity regarding the scope of records requested. The case was returned to the trial level for a hearing to address these concerns and determine the appropriate scope of discovery.

Petition for RemovalMotion to Quash SubpoenaSubpoena Duces TecumEvidence Code Section 1157HIPAAPeer Review CommitteesInfectious Control ReportsOperating RoomRedactionOverbroad Discovery
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re North Shore Hematology-Oncology Associates, P.C., Debtor

This memorandum opinion addresses whether the Debtor, a physician-owned healthcare practice, is a health care business under the Bankruptcy Code and if a patient care ombudsman should be appointed. The Court finds the Debtor is a healthcare business but waives the appointment of an ombudsman at this time. The decision is based on several factors, including the Debtor's lack of inpatient services, low patient complaint rate, existing compliance programs (HIPAA, CLIA), ability to maintain high-quality care, and monitoring by the New York State Department of Health. The Court notes the potential for revisiting the appointment if circumstances change.

BankruptcyPatient Care OmbudsmanHealthcare BusinessChapter 11Debtor in PossessionEastern District of New YorkSection 333(a)(1)Bankruptcy CodePatient ProtectionMedical Practice
References
16
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 02068 [126 AD3d 537]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2015

Matter of State of New York Off. of Mental Health v. Dennis J.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order committing Dennis J. to a secure treatment facility after findings of mental abnormality and dangerousness as a sex offender. The court upheld the Supreme Court's decision to permit an expert to testify about an email from a social worker treating Dennis J., rejecting arguments regarding HIPAA and due process as unpreserved or without merit. It found the expert testimony reliable and its probative value outweighed potential prejudice, with the jury properly instructed. The decision underscores the court's discretion in admitting expert testimony in civil commitment proceedings.

Mental Health LawSex OffenderCivil CommitmentExpert TestimonyHIPAADue ProcessAppellate ReviewMental AbnormalityDangerous Sex OffenderEvidentiary Rules
References
7
Case No. ADJ11369357, ADJ11369329
Regular
May 21, 2025

GLORIA DAVIS vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

Gloria Davis, the applicant, sought reconsideration of Findings and Orders issued on February 7, 2025. The original orders found she sustained a lumbar spine injury but denied her Labor Code section 132a claim for discrimination. Davis contended that the F&O was a result of fraud and WCJ bias, specifically regarding her termination from Kaiser Foundation Hospital for alleged HIPAA violations. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition, the defendant's answer, and the WCJ's report. The Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's credibility determination and finding no evidence that Davis was discriminated against due to her industrial injuries.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDGLORIA DAVISKAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALSEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICESINC.ADJ11369357ADJ11369329Oakland District OfficeOPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONpatient care technician
References
8
Case No. Z docket
Regular Panel Decision

Administration for Children's Services v. Silvia S.

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), the petitioner, moved the court for an order requiring the production of psychological, psychiatric, and medical records of the respondent, the mother of Daniel C. No child neglect or abuse petition had been filed. ACS cited the respondent's history of seizure disorder and postpartum depression, and alleged neglect based on non-compliance with medication and periods of homelessness. The court denied the motion, finding that ACS had not demonstrated a cause of action, and that the request for records was an improper attempt to determine if a cause of action existed. The court further held that the interest of justice in this matter did not outweigh the respondent's right to confidentiality under HIPAA and Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13.

Family LawChild NeglectPre-action DisclosureMedical RecordsPsychiatric RecordsConfidentialityHIPAAMental Hygiene LawSeizure DisorderPostpartum Depression
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 20 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