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

Constance B. v. Joan M.

This case involves a motion to quash a judicial subpoena duces tecum issued by respondent Joan M. The subpoena sought all records pertaining to Sonya M. from Under 21, a private, not-for-profit corporation serving runaway and homeless youths. The underlying matter is a petition where Sonya M.'s mother and her paramour, Robert B., are charged with child abuse and neglect. The court determined that the information sought was irrelevant to the neglect proceeding, deeming it a "fishing expedition." Crucially, the court found that Under 21 is legally prohibited from disclosing such information due to the confidentiality provisions of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act of 1978 (Executive Law, art 19-H, § 532 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (9 NYCRR 182.1 et seq.). The court emphasized the legislative intent to protect the confidentiality of runaway youth records, noting that the Family Court Act § 1046's exceptions to privilege do not extend to runaway home records. The court granted the motion to quash, affirming that the cloak of confidentiality for runaway homes shall not be broken without the youth's written consent.

ConfidentialityRunaway and Homeless Youth ActSubpoena Duces TecumChild Abuse and NeglectFamily LawStatutory InterpretationDisclosure of RecordsYouth ServicesConfidential CommunicationsLegislative Intent
References
2
Case No. docket # 1
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Alliance Residential Co.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sought to enforce an administrative subpoena against Aliance Residential Company as part of an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) investigation. The investigation stemmed from a charge filed by former employee Monica Laurel, who alleged wrongful termination after exhausting FMLA leave due to a spinal impairment, under Aliance's company-wide medical leave policy. Aliance objected to the subpoena, arguing irrelevance, undue burden, harassment, and privacy concerns regarding other employees' medical and personal information. The Court granted the EEOC's application, finding the requested company-wide information relevant to illuminate Aliance's general policies bearing on the complainant's situation. It also determined that while compliance might be inconvenient, it did not constitute an undue burden or harassment, and existing statutory safeguards adequately addressed privacy concerns, except for compelling Alliance to interview former employees over whom it had no control.

Employment DiscriminationADAFMLAAdministrative Subpoena EnforcementDisability DiscriminationEEOC InvestigationRelevancy of EvidenceUndue BurdenConfidentiality ConcernsCompany-wide Policy
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Grand Jury Subpoenas for Local 17, 135, 257 & 608 of United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America

This case addresses a challenge by four Union Locals of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, against subpoenas duces tecum issued by a New York County Grand Jury. The subpoenas sought membership lists as part of an investigation into corruption within the carpentry and drywall industry. The Locals argued that the subpoenas violated their members' First Amendment associational rights and Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Grand Jury's legitimate and compelling need for the lists to conduct its corruption investigation outweighed the asserted constitutional concerns. The court concluded that the subpoenas were neither overly broad nor burdensome, and the information sought was relevant to the ongoing investigation.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumFirst AmendmentFourth AmendmentAssociational RightsFreedom of AssociationUnreasonable Search and SeizureOverbreadthCompelling State InterestCorruption Investigation
References
24
Case No. 01-17-00146-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2019

Michael Fallon, M.D. v. the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson as Officer for the Public Information for the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Michael Fallon, M.D. sued the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA) after they denied his request for certain information, claiming it was held by an affiliated private entity, the MD Anderson Physicians Network. The trial court dismissed Fallon's suit. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Fallon's mandamus claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the Cancer Center had a right of access to the Physicians Network's records, thereby making the information "public information" under the PIA. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Fallon's declaratory judgment claim, stating that the Declaratory Judgments Act does not waive sovereign immunity for such claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Public Information ActSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentMandamusGovernmental BodyNon-profit OrganizationPhysicians NetworkMedical Peer ReviewSummary JudgmentPlea to Jurisdiction
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1988

In re the Grand Jury Subpoenas Served Upon Doe

The Grand Jury of New York County issued subpoenas duces tecum to the law firm of John Doe, P. C., seeking various records. John Doe, P. C. moved to quash or modify these subpoenas, asserting attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. After an in camera review of 109 files, the court denied the attorney-client privilege claim for two files due to insufficient proof of confidentiality. For the work product privilege, the court applied the crime-fraud exception for specific subpoenaed records, citing an ongoing investigation into corruption in personal injury litigation. The court also narrowly construed the work product privilege. Consequently, the motion was granted for eight specific files found to contain protected attorney work product, while denied for the remaining files. The records not protected by privilege were ordered to be delivered to the District Attorney by August 18, 1988, following service of the decision on August 16, 1988.

attorney-client privilegework product privilegesubpoenas duces tecumGrand Jury investigationcrime-fraud exceptionin camera inspectionlegal ethicsconfidentialityevidence disclosuremotion to quash
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1978

People ex rel. Hickox v. Hickox

In a child custody proceeding, the petitioner father sought the respondent mother's psychiatric records from Payne-Whitney Psychiatric Clinic via a subpoena duces tecum. Special Term granted the motion to quash the subpoena. On appeal, the order was reversed, and the motion to quash was denied. The appellate court clarified that a subpoena does not equate to an order of disclosure and directed that the Special Term Justice must first examine the records to determine their relevance, whether the physician-patient privilege (CPLR 4504) has been waived, and the necessity of disclosure for the custody determination, prioritizing the child's welfare while guarding against unnecessary revelation of confidential information. The court emphasized a cautious approach to disclosure, especially in light of the potential 'chilling effect' on parents seeking psychiatric help.

Child CustodySubpoena Duces TecumPsychiatric RecordsPhysician-Patient PrivilegeConfidentialityWaiver of PrivilegeDisclosure LimitationsAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionWelfare of the Child
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Health Care Information Council v. Seton Health Plan, Inc.

Seton Health Plan, Inc., a licensed health maintenance organization (HMO), failed to file its annual Health Plan Employer Data Information Set (HEDIS) reports for 1999 and 2000 with the Texas Health Care Information Council, leading to a dispute over civil penalties. The State, through the Attorney General, initially demanded $153,000, interpreting 'each act of violation' as each day of non-compliance, while Seton contended the maximum penalty was $10,000 per unfiled report. Seton filed a declaratory judgment action to construe the statute, and the district court sided with Seton, assessing a minimum penalty of $1,000 for each report. The State appealed, raising issues of mootness, sovereign immunity, the penalty amount, denial of injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the district court's interpretation of the penalty, the assessed penalties, and the denial of injunctive relief, but remanded the issue of the State's attorney's fees.

Declaratory JudgmentStatutory ConstructionCivil PenaltiesSovereign ImmunityInjunctive ReliefAttorney's FeesHEDIS ReportHealth Maintenance OrganizationTexas Health and Safety CodeAdministrative Procedure Act
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2015

Tuzzolino v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.

In July 2013, the plaintiff was injured in a fall at the defendant's plant, sustaining a wrist fracture, and injuries to the lower back, right leg, and foot. He underwent a lumbar laminectomy in April 2014 and sought treatment from various healthcare providers, including a spinal surgeon. The plaintiff subsequently commenced an action alleging Labor Law violations. The defendant served subpoenas on the plaintiff's nonparty treating healthcare providers, claiming the testimony was unavailable through other sources. The plaintiff moved to quash these subpoenas and sought a protective order. The motion court granted the plaintiff's motion, and the appellate court affirmed, ruling that the defendant failed to demonstrate the testimony sought was unrelated to diagnosis and treatment or that it was the only means of obtaining the information. The court emphasized that the treating providers' records were accessible for review by the defendant's experts.

SubpoenasProtective OrderMedical RecordsTreating PhysiciansDepositionsDiscoveryAppellate ReviewLabor Law ViolationsPersonal InjurySpinal Surgery
References
3
Case No. 03-02-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2002

Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General v. Seton Health Plan, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by the Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General, against Seton Health Plan, Inc. The core dispute centered on the interpretation of civil penalties for Seton's failure to file annual Health Plan Employer Data Information Set (HEDIS) reports as required by the Texas Health and Safety Code. Seton sought a declaratory judgment asserting that the maximum penalty for such a violation was $10,000 per report, while the State initially pursued a penalty based on each day of violation. The district court sided with Seton on the maximum penalty, assessed minimum penalties of $1,000 for each of the two unfiled reports, denied the State's request for injunctive relief, and ordered the State to pay Seton's attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's declaratory judgment, the denial of injunctive relief, and the penalty assessment. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the issue of the State's attorney's fees, ruling that the State was statutorily entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under Government Code section 402.006(c) due to its recovery of a civil penalty.

Texas LawHealth Care RegulationHEDIS Report ViolationCivil PenaltiesDeclaratory Judgment ActionSovereign Immunity WaiverInjunctive Relief DeniedAttorney's Fees AwardStatutory ConstructionAdministrative Law
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Morgan Stanley & Co.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sought to enforce two subpoenas against Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., stemming from race and/or sex discrimination charges filed by four African-American women employees. Morgan Stanley contested enforcement, arguing against sharing information with charging parties due to a potential settlement and an existing protective order from a previous case (Schieffelin litigation), and claiming the subpoenas were irrelevant, vague, or burdensome. The Court largely sided with the EEOC, affirming its independent investigative powers despite individual settlements and upholding the right to share information with charging parties as per Supreme Court precedent. The subpoenas were enforced, but with modifications that limited the scope of requested 'informal complaints' and upheld the protective order from the prior Schieffelin case for any overlapping documents.

Employment DiscriminationSubpoena EnforcementEEOC InvestigationConfidentiality OrderCollateral EstoppelCharging Parties RightsTitle VIIEqual Pay ActSettlement ImpactRelevance of Evidence
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 1,545 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